1 


I.IHKAKV 

University  of  California. 

J\cccssion<J>k<b?  13 /^  '        CLj^s  No. 


PLAIN  FACTS 

KOR 

FAIR  MINDS 


AN  APPEAL  TO  CANDOR 
AND  COMMON  SENSE 


BY 

GEORGE    M.  SEARLE 

Priest  of  the  Congregation  of  St.  Paul  the  Apostle ;  Professor  of 

Mathematics  and  Astronomy  in  the  Catholic  University 

of  America  and  Director  of  the  Observatory 


^  0»  THB 


[TjyiVBRSITT] 


New  York 

THE  CATHOLIC  BOOK  EXCHANGE 

1 20  West  60th  Street 

1895 


flibil  ob6tat : 

AUGUSTINUS  F.  HEWlT,  S.T.D., 

Censor  Deputatus. 


irmprtmatur : 

MICHAEIv  AUGUSTINUS, 

Archiep.  Neo  Ebor, 
XV  Marty  iSq^, 


Ann 


Copyright,  1895,  by  *'Thk  Missionary  Society  of 

St.  PauIv  thk  AP0ST1.E  IN  THE  State 

OF  New  York." 


Printed  at  the  Columbus  Press,  120  West  60th  St. 


'%,^S^X,       BXI7S3 
[UlflTBIlSITTl  sy- 

PREFACE. 


^TlHIS  book  has  been  written,  not  with  the 
^  view  of  controversy,  but  of  simply  stat- 
ing the  Catholic  doctrine.  In  these  days 
there  seems  little  need  of  controversy  on 
our  part  with  the  majority,  at  least,  of 
Protestant  Christians  ;  for  their  belief  mainly 
consists  of  remnants  of  our  own,  and  so  far 
are  we  from  objecting  to  it,  that  we  thank 
God  that  they  have  preserved  such  impor- 
tant parts  of  His  revelation  as  are  the  dog- 
mas of  the  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  and  the 
Redemption  of  man  by  the  great  Sacrifice 
of  the  Cross.  Some  tenets  they  have,  no 
doubt,  which  we  cannot  approve,  but  these 
are  generally  regarded  as  non-essential,  and 
are  losing  their  hold  even  in  the  churches 
which  nominally  maintain  them.  What  they 
prize,  we  also  teach. 

They,  however,  are  not  tired  of  contro- 
versy. The  very  essence  of  Protestantism  is 
in    protesting    against    the    Catholic    Church. 


iv  Preface, 

In  its  beginning  these  protests  were  based 
on  really  divergent  beliefs ;  but  now  they 
are  principally  directed  against  what  has  no 
real  existence.  Those  who  make  them  are, 
for  the  most  part,  as  we  Catholics  well 
know,  simply  fighting  a  man  of  straw ;  a 
creature  of  their  own  imagination,  and  of  the 
false  traditions  received  from  their  ancestors. 
The  only  way  in  which  their  objections  can 
be  answered,  except  by  such  examples  of  vir- 
tue as  we  can  show,  is  by  plain  statements 
of  what  our  belief  really  is.  If  they  can  be 
induced  to  listen  to  us,  and  to  believe  that 
we  actually  teach  and  hold  what  we  say  we 
do,  as  every  instinct  of  fairness  and  candor 
and  honesty  would  compel  them  to  do  in 
any  other  question  ;  if  they  will  take  our  doc- 
trine from  our  own  account  of  it,  not  from 
those  of  others  prejudiced  like  themselves, 
we  need  not  fear  the  outcome. 

There  seems  at  the  present  time  to  be  a 
better  disposition  than  formerly  on  the  part 
of  those  outside  to  listen  to  our  own  state- 
ments about  our  faith,  rather  than  to  those 
coming  from  second-hand  sources.  What  is 
said  in  these  pages  has,  of  course,  been  said 


Preface.  v 

before ;     but    perhaps    it    may    fall    now    on 
more  willing  ears  and  more  candid  minds. 

In  these  pages  the  truth  of  the  Christian 
religion  is  practically  assumed.  This  book 
is  not  intended  to  prove  the  existence  of 
God,  or  the  fact  of  a  Divine  revelation  to 
the  atheist,  the  agnostic,  or  the  infidel. 
Neither  is  it  directed  against  such  as  may 
believe  in  some  revelation  additional  or  sup- 
plementary to  that  given  to  us  by  Christ ; 
nor  does  it  deal  with  every  theory  regard- 
ing the  Church  which  may  be  held — as,  for 
example,  that  of  the  Anglicans.  It  is  ad- 
dressed principally  to  what  are  commonly 
called  Bible  Christians,  who  form  the  major- 
ity of  our  Protestant  population,  in  order  to 
show  them  that  the  Catholic  religion,  while 
thoroughly  in  accordance  with  Scripture  and 
based  on  it,  also  agrees  with  reason  and 
common  sense,  and  has  nothing  to  fear 
from  the  discoveries  or  legitimate  conclu- 
sions of  science  ;  that  having  the  historical 
presumption  in  its  favor,  it  also  in  every 
other  way  satisfies  the  demands  of  the  intel- 
lect, as  well  as  the  needs  of  the  soul.  And 
to  show  the  reasonableness  of  what  is  really 


jIITBESIfl 


vi  Preface, 

the  only  thoroughly  reasonable  form  of 
Christianity  may  not  be  altogether  unprofit- 
able even  to  others  also,  of  whatever  kind 
their  belief  or  unbelief  may  be. 

It  may  be  added,  in  further  explanation 
of  the  plan  of  the  work,  that  though,  as 
has  been  said,  it  is  not  intended  as  an  at- 
tack on  distinctively  Protestant  doctrines,  it 
has  seemed  best  at  the  outset  to  compare 
the  Catholic  idea  of  Christianity  with  the 
usual  Protestant  theory  basing  religion  on 
the  Bible  alone.  The  creed  of  the  Catholic 
Church  is  then  set  forth  point  by  point ;  the 
order  here  followed  is  that  of  the  profession 
of  faith  made  by  converts,  each  point  of  this 
profession  being  separately  considered,  and 
the  common  objections  and  misconceptions 
dealt  with.  In  conclusion,  other  charges 
against  the  Church  not  suggested  by  the 
profession,  but  often  made  by  those  who  do 
not  know  us,  are  discussed  and  shown  also 
to  rest  on  prejudice  or  misunderstanding. 


CONTENTS. 


fTJIflVBilSITT] 


m^ 


Chapter 

I.— Introductory 

II.— Bible  Protestantism, 
III. — The  Catholic  Idea  of  Christian 

ITY, 

IV. — The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 
V. — The  Catholic  Idea  of  the  Bible, 
VI. — The  principal  Points  of  Catholic 

Faith, 

VII.— The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,     . 
VIII. — The  Immaculate  Conception, 
IX.— The  Holy  Eucharist, 
X.— The  Seven  Sacraments,  . 

XI. — Purgatory, 

XII.— The  Resurrection  of  the  Dead 

Everlasting  Life, 
XIII. — The  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pon 

tiff, 

XIV. — Catholic  Education, 
XV. — The  Veneration  of    the  Saints, 

AND   OF   their   IMAGES, 

XVI. — The  Remainder    of  the    Profes- 
sion,         

XVII.— The  Precepts  of  the  Church, 
XVIII.— Indulgences  and  Dispensations, 


Page 

I 
i6 

29 
36 
50 

59 
74 
82 

87 

lOI 

III 

132 

143 
151 

162 

185 
198 
221 


viii  Contents. 


Chapter  Page 

XIX. — Confession, 233 

XX. — The  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy,     .    244 

XXI.— Modern  Miracles,  .  .251 

XXII. — Superstition,     ....        .    268 

XXIII. — The  Church  opposed  to  Science,    274 

XXIV.— The  Church  opposed  to  Liberty 

OF  Thought,         .       .       .       .285 
XXV.— The    Catholic    Church   opposed 

TO  Free  Institutions,        .        .  298 

XXVI. — Persecution, 307 

XXVII. — The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage,  321 

XXVIII.-~Use  of  the  Latin  Language,        .  331 
XXIX. — Ceremonies     and    Rites    of    the 

Church, 338 

XXX.— The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  . 

Church, 343 

XXXI.— Conclusion, 352 


[UirlVB»SIT7j 

CHAPTER  I. 

INTRODUCTORY. 


I  ADDRESS  these  pages  in  general  to  those 
who  love  the  truth,  and  who  wish  to  know 
it ;  more  speciall}^  to  those  who  believe,  as  com- 
mon sense  must  require  us  to  believe,  that  the 
most  important  part  of  all  truth  is  that  which 
relates  to  man's  duty  here,  and  his  destiny 
hereafter ;  but  particularly  to  those  who  are 
convinced  that  this  last,  religious  truth,  or  the 
true  religion,  is  to  be  found  somewhere  or  other 
in  what  is  known  as  Christianity ;  or  in  other 
words,  that  the  religion  founded  by  Christ  con- 
tains all  that  man  can  know  on  these  most  im- 
portant matters. 

Some  do  not  believe  that  anything  can  be 
known  about  these  matters  except  what  the  light 
of  nature  shows  us ;  with  such,  of  course,  dis- 
cussion is  quite  possible,  but  I  do  not  propose  to 
enter  on  it.  Many  others  believe  that  the  true, 
or  at  any  rate  the  truest  religion  is  not  that  of 
Christ,  but  some  other  ;  but  though  there  are 
plenty  of  this  sort  in  the  world,  there  are  not  so 
many  here  ;  few  Americans  are  Mohammedans, 
or  even  Buddhists  ;  so  I  pass  them  by,  and  turn 


Introductory, 


to  the  multitude,  who  still  are,  by  inheritance 
and  by  profession,  Christians. 

And  yet,  after  all,  considerations  presented  on 
this  basis  may  not  be  altogether  beside  the 
mark  for  those  who  do  not  stand  on  it.  For 
the  reason  why  they  refuse  to  stand  on  it  may 
well  be  that  the  Christian  creed  seems  to  them 
unreasonable  and  impossible  ;  but  that  may  be 
simply  because  their  knowledge  of  it  is  very  in- 
complete ;  because  they  have  known  it  as  it  has 
been  handed  down  to  them  from  their  fathers, 
but  not  as  it  has  been  believed  by  the  great 
majority  of  those  who,  from  the  time  of  Christy 
have  lived  and  died  in  it. 

It  may  be  well,  then,  even  for  those  who  have 
rejected  Christianity,  as  they  have  understood 
it^  to  examine  if  they  have  been  right  or 
thoroughly  reasonable  in  so  doing. 

Would  it  be  reasonable  or  fair  to  reject  the 
whole  science  of  medicine  because  you  have 
concluded  that  some  form  of  it  which  you  have 
studied  is  a  mistake  ?  Let  us,  then,  not  reject 
ChrivStianity  for  good  and  all  until  we  are  sure 
we  know  all  about  it ;  and  certainly  not  if  we 
are  quite  ignorant  or  doubtful  about  what  the 
great  mass  of  Christians  hold. 

There  are  vast  numbers — you  are  perhaps  one 
yourself — who  are  in  just  this  ignorance  or 
doubt.  It  is  simply  astonishing  that  there 
should  be  two  hundred  millions  of  people  hold- 


Introductory, 


ing  one  faith,  and  spread  through  all  parts  of 
the  world,  and  yet  that  their  neighbors,  friends, 
or  even  relatives,  with  whom  so  much  of  their 
life  is  spent,  should  be  in  such  ignorance  of 
what  that  faith  is,  or  have  such  false  ideas 
about  it.  Especially  as  these  two  hundred 
millions  do  not  form  a  secret  society,  with  secret 
meetings,  signs,  and  passwords ;  no,  everything 
that  they  hold  and  teach  is  open  and  above- 
board  ;  they  are  not  Freemasons,  they  are  simply 
Catholics. 

It  was  so,  however,  from  the  beginning ;  we 
were  accused  of  worshipping  an  ass's  head,  and 
of  slaughtering  infants;  but  then  there  was 
more  excuse  for  such  calumnies,  for  there  was, 
there  had  to  be,  some  secrecy  in  our  meetings 
then  ;  but  now  there  is  very  little  ;  every  one  is 
welcome  to  every  religious  meeting  of  Catho- 
lics, except  to  that  between  priest  and  penitent 
in  the  confessional ;  you  yourself  would  not 
want  strangers,  or  indeed  any  third  party,  at 
that. 

But  I  do  not  wish  to  blame  any  one  for  being 
thus  ignorant,  if  he  will  only  admit  that  perhaps 
he  is  so  ;  for  I  should  have  to  blame  myself ; 
having  been  once  as  ignorant  myself,  and  yet 
fancying  I  knew  it  all.  But  that  was  some  time 
ago. 

Well  now,  we  will  come  back  to  the  line  on 


Introductory. 


wliich  we  started.  We  will  suppose  that  you 
are  a  Christian,  or  at  least  would  like  to  be  so 
if  you  could  see  your  way  to  it  without  giving 
up  3^our  reason  or  your  moral  sense,  or  going 
through  some  great  excitement,  which  you  feel 
you  cannot  work  yourself  up  to. 

And  here  let  me  say  a  word  to  dispel  a  de- 
lUvSion  which  has  become  quite  popular  of  late. 
It  is  that  religion  is  a  matter  of  emotion  or  ex- 
citement ;  that  there  is  some  incompatibility 
between  it  and  strict  logic  ;  that  a  religious  man, 
and  especially  a  clergyman,  must  be  a  man  of 
feeling,  rather  than  of  solid  hard-headed  fact. 
That  religion,  in  short,  is  a  sentiment  rather 
than  a  science ;  that  it  is  fit  for  women  and 
children,  and  does  them  a  great  deal  of  good ; 
and  would  no  doubt  do  a  man  good  too,  if  he 
could  only  bend  his  gigantic  intellect  to  it. 

Now,  this  idea  would  be  simply  amusing  to 
any  one  who  knows  anything  about  the  Catholic 
religion,  if  it  were  not  a  dangerous  one,  and 
therefore  liable  to  make  one  sigh  as  well  as 
smile.  In  the  first  place,  the  part  of  it  relating 
to  women  is  rather  a  bold  assumption  which 
perhaps  we  cannot  hold  to  much  longer ;  I  have 
a  suspicion  that  perhaps  women  have  more 
sense  than  some  men  imagine,  and  that  we  had 
better  not  be  too  confident  that  we  are  so  much 
more  clever  than  they,  even  in  an  argument. 
■^  But  let  that  go.     The  amusing  part  is  the 


Introductory,  5 


utter  misconception  of  what  religion  really  is. 
True,  it  is  a  matter  of  emotion  ;  and  of  senti- 
ment, if  you  choose  to  call  it  so.  And  it  would 
not  be  good  for  anything  if  it  were  not.  A 
religion  which  was  simply  a  set  of  mathematical 
formulas  might  appeal  to  a  man's  brain,  but  it 
would  not  change  his  life. 

But  the  emotion  of  true  religion  must  rest  on 
a  solid  basis  of  truth,  fact,  and  reason.  The 
true  religion,  at  bottom,  is  not  imagination,  but 
knowledge  ;  and  knowledge,  not  of  one  fact  or 
another,  isolated  or  disjointed,  but  logically 
connected  and  thoroughly  consistent ;  with  no 
paradoxes  or  absurdities  in  it ;  knowledge,  in 
short,  of  the  kind  that  is  properl}^  called  science. 
It  is  as  truly  a  science  as  any  one  of  the  ex- 
cellent branches  of  knowledge  which  are  so 
named ;  different,  however,  to  some  extent  from 
most  of  them  in  the  way  it  is  developed;  and 
from  all  of  them,  in  being  of  all  the  most  impor- 
tant. 

If  you  avsk  seriously,  why,  if  this  is  the  case, 
women  and  children  take  more  to  religion  than 
men  ? — I  am  afraid  the  true  reason  is  that  re- 
ligion has  rather  an  intimate  connection  with 
morality,  and  that  women  and  children,  as 
things  are  now,  take  more  kindly  to  that.  A 
life  of  solid  virtue  is  the  best  preparation  for 
religious  truth  ;  but  still,  every  one  can  receive 
it,  if  only  he  will ;  and  a  man  if  he  is  virtuous, 


6  Introductory, 


is  apt  to  be  very  solidly  so.  Virtue,  by  the 
way,  really  means,  in  the  Latin  from  which  it 
is  taken,  manliness ;  it  would  be  well  for  all 
men  to  think  of  that, 

Tr}^  then,  to  free  yourself  from  this  idea, 
rather  prevalent  at  present,  that  reason  and 
religion  do  not  go  together ;  or  what  comes  to 
about  the  same  thing,  that  they  are  two  separate 
apartments  of  the  mind,  and  that  you  must  step 
out  of  one  before  going  into  the  other.  Indeed, 
is  this  idea,  in  itself,  reasonable  ?  You  know 
that  both  reason  and  religion  are  worth  having ; 
indeed  the  first  is  obviously  indispensable,  and 
the  second,  you  must  at  least  acknowledge,  has 
done  and  is  doing  a  great  deal  of  good,  and  you 
cannot  shake  off  the  respect  you  have  for  it 
when  it  seems  to  be  genuine.  You  feel  that  at 
any  rate  there  is  some  truth  about  it ;  and  if 
you  would  think  a  little  harder,  you  would  see 
that  what  there  is  true  about  it  cannot  be  incon- 
sistent with  reason,  for  two  truths  cannot  be  in- 
consistent. It  cannot  be  necessary  to  abandon 
one  before  taking  up  the  other. 

I  say,  you  feel  that  there  must  be  some  truth 
about  religion ;  and  I  use  the  word  ' '  truth ' '  in 
its  strict  sense,  as  meaning  a  correct  statement 
of  facts.  Perhaps  you  deny  this.  But  you 
must  at  least  admit  that  every  religion  rests  on 
some  statements  which  it  holds  to  be  true; 
some  dogmas,  as  such  statements  in  the  matter 


Introductory, 


of  religion  are  properly  called.  It  is  merely 
nonsense  to  talk  about  a  religion  without  any 
dogmas.  The  very  emotion  which  you  perhaps 
think  the  principal  part  of  religion  must  rest  on 
them.  One  can*t  get  excited  or  deeply  moved 
about  nothing.  Even  a  lunatic  is  joyful  or 
melancholy  about  something  ;  something  which 
he  thinks  is  a  fact,  though  we  may  see  clearly 
that  he  is  all  wrong  about  it. 

Take  away  the  dogmas  of  any  religion,  and 
there  is  nothing  left  of  it.  Excitement  and 
emotion  ma}^  be  all  very  well ;  but  there  must 
be  something  to  get  excited  and  emotional 
about. 

Excitement  and  emotion,  then,  rest  on  some 
supposed  fact.  I  said  just  now  that  they  may 
be  all  very  well;  but  they  are  not  very  well, 
indeed,  they  are  not  well  at  all  in  the  long  run, 
if  the  supposed  fact  is  only  a  supposed  one. 
They  are  really  only  a  sort  of  lunacy,  and  more 
or  less  dangerous. 

You  have  no  respect  for  lunacy,  but  you  have 
for  the  Christian  religion  ;  and  generally  speak- 
ing, you  do  not  regard  it  as  dangerous,  but 
rather  good  for  society.  You  are  a  Christian, 
or  you  would  like  to  be  so  if  you  could  see  your 
way  to  it ;  but  surely  you  do  not  call  yourself 
a  lunatic,  or  want  to  be  one. 

What  is  the  reason  ?  It  is  that  you  have 
sense  enough  to  see  not  only  that  the  emotion 


8  Introductory, 


of  the  Christian  religion,  which  you  know  tends 
to  virtue  and  happiness,  and  which  you  your- 
self may  have  felt,  must  and  does  rest  on  some 
fact  or  facts  supposed  to  be  true,  but  also  that 
you  are  pretty  sure  that  this  supposition  is  not 
altogether  wrong. 

Here  you  are,  then,  right  face  to  face  with  a 
question  which  you  ought  not  to  trifle  with. 
Five  minutes'  thought  will  bring  you,  and 
must,  it  would  seem,  bring  any  man  of  ordin- 
arily clear  head,  up  to  it.  But  most  men  seem 
to  go  no  farther. 

The  question  is,  how  much  of  the  Christian 
religion  is  true  ?  Some  of  it  must  be  true  ;  but 
how  much  ?  Some  of  its  dogmas  must  be  cor- 
rect ;  which  are  they  ? 

Mind,  as  I  said  at  the  beginning,  I  am  not 
talking  to  Buddhists  or  Mohammedans ;  nor  to 
absolute  atheists,  if  such  persons  there  be,  nor 
to  universal  sceptics ;  but  to  those  who  call 
themselves  Christians,  or  would  like  to  do  so. 

Now,  if  the  Christian  religion,  or  anything 
calling  itself  so,  undertakes  to  teach  you  that  two 
and  two  make  five,  of  course  you  can't  accept 
that.  We  can't  dethrone  reason  to  make  way 
for  religion,  or  for  anything  else.  Or  if  it 
should  teach  you  that  the  world  was  made  in 
six  days  of  twenty -four  hours  each,  I  can  cer- 
tainly see  that  you  may  find  that  quite  hard  to 
believe.     Of  course  that  might  be  so ;    I   take 


Introductory. 


for  granted  that  you  believe  in  God,  and  if  you 
do  believe  in  Him,  and  therefore  in  His  omni- 
potence, you  must  see  that  He  could  make  all 
these  formations  on  the  earth,  which  seem  to 
have  been  the  growth  of  time,  in  six  days,  or  in 
six  minutes,  or  in  six  seconds ;  but  still,  such 
action  on  His  part  would  seem  like  a  trick 
played  to  deceive  us,  and  I  can  readily  see  how 
you  would  rather  look  somewhere  else  for  the 
truth. 

Now,  perhaps  you  think  that  the  Christian 
religion  does  require  beliefs  of  you  which  are 
contrary  to  reason,  or  to  well-ascertained  fact. 
But  if  you  do,  this  is  just  where  I  blame  you. 
Wh}^  don't  you  examine  a  little  or  even  a  good 
deal  more,  and  not  conclude  that  you  know  all 
about  it  ? 

But  you  say,  where  shall  I  examine?  where 
shall  I  begin  ?  The  Christian  religion  is  split 
up  into  so  many  denominations,  and  teaches  so 
many  different  things,  even  irreconcilable  with 
each  other,  that  I  don't  know  what  I  am  to  look 
at  first. 

Well,  of  course  if  you  have  been  brought  up 
in  any  particular  one  of  these  denominations,  it 
is  quite  natural  that  you  should  examine  first 
into  that.  But  if  you  have  done  so,  and  have 
found  the  result  unsatisfactory  ;  or  if  you  want 
to  approach  the  subject,  as  it  were,  from  the  out- 


lo  Introductory, 

side,  it  seems  more  natural  that  you  should  now 
look  first  at  what  the  majority  of  Christians 
hold  ;  at  any  rate,  that  you  should  not  make  up 
your  mind  without  doing  this  ;  that  you  should 
not,  as  I  said  at  the  start,  close  the  subject 
because  you  cannot  accept  what  some  compara- 
tively small  number  believe,  and  conclude  that 
the  faith  of  the  great  remainder  is  substantially 
the  same,  or,  at  any  rate,  equally  untenable. 

It  seems  natural,  too,  to  look,  and  to  look  first, 
into  the  belief  of  that  great  body  of  believers 
which  has,  in  its  organization  and  outward  form 
at  least,  come  down  from  the  first  days  of  the 
Christian  religion  itself;  which  goes  by  the 
name  of  no  human  founder  or  reformer.  Of 
course  this  great  body,  this  parent  stock  of 
Christianity,  may  have  corrupted  or  changed  the 
faith  which  Christ  gave  it  in  the  beginning  ; 
may  have  introduced  something  false  or  im- 
moral, or  at  any  rate  merely  human,  into  that 
faith ;  may  have  usurped  powers  which  do  not 
belong  to  it ;  may  have  done  something,  in 
short,  which  it  was  right  to  protest  against,  and 
have  acted  in  such  a  way  that  the  only  effectual 
protest  was  to  abandon  it,  and  start  in  a  manner 
afresh.  But  it  is  not  reasonable  to  take  for 
granted  that  it  did  so.  The  burden  of  proof 
rather  rests  on  those  who  claim  that  such  was 
the  case. 

And  it  is  not  quite  fair  to   take   their  own 


7BESIT7) 


accounts  of  the  reasons  which  led  them  to  separ- 
ate ;  of  the  doctrines  which  the  Catholic  Church 
taught,  and  still  teaches,  which  they  say  they 
could  not  swallow.  Better  and  fairer  to  find 
out  if  they  might  not  have  been  mistaken,  to 
say  the  least.  When  a  son  leaves  his  father's 
house  after  some  quarrel,  you  don't  simply  take 
his  word  about  the  quarrel ;  it  is  only  fair  to 
see  what  account  the  father  will  give  of  it.  In- 
deed, generally  the  presumption  is  in  his  favor. 

Do  not,  then,  believe  implicitly  all  that  you 
have  been  accustomed  to  hear  about  the  corrup- 
tions, errors,  idolatries,  etc.,  of  the  old  and 
original  Christian  Church.  I  do  not  blame  you 
much  if  you  have  done  so  hitherto ;  the  false, 
and  to  Catholics  really  absurd,  current  notions 
about  our  faith  have  been  held  and  circulated 
so  constantly  among  Protestants  that  it  can 
hardly  be  a  matter  of  surprise  that  most  non- 
Catholics  take  them  for  granted. 

All  I  ask  of  you  is  to  admit  that  the  question 
may  have  two  sides  to  it.  The  difficulty  is  that 
most  Englishmen  and  Americans,  in  making  up 
their  minds  as  to  whether  they  can  be  Chris- 
tians, bar  off  the  Catholic  Church  at  the  start 
from  their  inquiry.  They  take  for  granted  that 
she  is  wrong  ;  they  feel  as  sure  of  this  as  they 
do  that  the  earth  goes  round  the  sun,  not  the 
sun  round  the  earth.     They  think   both   these 


1 2  Introductory, 


matters  were  settled  three  hundred  years 
ago. 

**What!"  they  will  say,  "be  a  Catholic? 
Why,  you  might  as  well  go  in  for  astrology,  or 
hold  that  everything  is  made  up  of  the  four  ele- 
ments, earth,  air,  fire,  and  water.  Why,  the 
thing  is  exploded  ;  it  is  a  relic  of  the  dark  ages  ; 
it  is  just  a  superstition  which  no  intelligent  man 
can  hang  on  to.  It  is  a  wonder  that  it  has  such 
a  hold  in  this  glorious  nineteenth  (and  almost 
twentieth)    century." 

All  they  will  admit  is,  that  this  superstition 
may  be  of  some  use  to  poor  ignorant  people, 
who  are  too  brutish  or  stupid  to  accept  anything 
better;  the  consolation  they  give  themselves 
when  some  friend  of  theirs  does  embrace  this 
old  and  foolish  religion,  and  perhaps  even  be- 
comes a  priest,  to  teach  it  to  others,  is,  "  Well, 
after  all,  you  will  be  able  to  do  some  good  to 
those  poor  people  whom  we  cannot  get  hold 
of." 

How  often  do  we  hear  such  things  said,  even 
to  our  face  !  But  in  spite  of  this  seeming  confi- 
dence of  superiority,  there  is  one  thing  that 
surprises  them,  and  that  they  do  not  like  to 
talk  about ;  and  that  is,  that  it  is  rather  the 
educated  and  intelligent  ones  among  them  that 
become  Catholics,  whereas  it  is  among  the 
poorer  and  more  ignorant  among  us  that  they 
find  ones  of  whom  they  get  hold.     It  looks  as  if 


Introductory,  1 3 


the  Catholic  faith  were  more  attractive  to  in- 
telligent people  than  the  Protestant  one ;  or 
rather,  it  would  look  so  if  that  were  not,  of 
course,  too  impossible  an  idea  to  be  entertained. 

Another  thing,  too,  seems  a  little  strange  :  that 
some  inducement  in  the  way  of  material  aid  or 
social  position  seems  usually  required  to  make  a 
Catholic  abandon  his  faith  ;  whereas  the  Protes- 
tant who  becomes  a  Catholic  has,  as  a  rule, 
to  sacrifice  something  for  his  convictions.  It 
looks,  you  see,  as  if  the  convictions  were 
stronger  one  way  than  the  other. 

Of  course  it  may  be  said  in  explanation  of  the 
first  of  these  two  curious  facts,  by  those  who  are 
willing  to  admit  them  as  facts,  that  the  intel- 
ligent Protestants  who  become  Catholics  are 
w^hat  are  known  at  the  present  day  as  '  *  cranks ' ' ; 
that  they  are  not  people  of  plain  common  sense, 
but  students  who  have  puzzled  themselves  by 
reasoning,  or  fanciful  persons  whose  imagina- 
tion has  been  excited.  This  w^as  what  Festus 
said  to  St.  Paul  (Acts  xxvi.  24)  :  "  Paul,  thou 
art  beside  thyself;  much  learning  doth  make 
thee  mad."  Paul,  however,  has  generally  been 
accepted,  even  by  those  who  are  not  Christians, 
as  a  man  of  good  sound  intellect,  to  say  the 
least.  And  converts  to  Catholicity  generally, 
even  in  our  times,  manage  to  keep  out  of  the 
asylum,  in  spite  of  their  friends'  predictions  to 
the  contrary. 


14  Introductory. 


To  the  second,  it  will  be  urged  that  Catho- 
lics must  gain  and  Protestants  lose  by  a 
change,  because  Protestants  are  as  a  whole  bet- 
ter off,  financially  and  socially,  than  Catholics. 
This  is  true ;  but  still  it  does  not  explain  why 
the  convert  to  the  Catholic  Church  should  make 
the  sacrifice  which  he  does,  or  why  Protestants, 
having  presumably  the  truth,  and  certainly  the 
money  in  their  possession,  should  have  such 
unsatisfactory  results  in  their  apostolate  among 
well-instructed  Catholics. 

Now,  all  I  would  ask  is  that  you  would,  just 
for  a  moment,  admit  that  there  may  be  some 
good  solid  reasons  which  have  influenced  the 
many  quite  intellectual  and  sensible  Protes- 
tants who  have  become  Catholics  to  make  the 
change,  in  spite  of  the  sacrifice  which  it  in- 
volved. 

And  I  may  add,  that  it  may  be  worth  while 
even  for  those  who  have  almost  lost  faith  in 
Christianity,  as  being  out  of  harmony  with  rea- 
son, to  see  if  there  is  not  a  chance  that  some- 
thing still  remains  to  be  said  on  the  other  side  ; 
to  inquire,  before  giving  up  altogether,  whether 
there  be  not  a  form  of  Christianity  about  which 
they  know  little  or  nothing,  though  they  have 
always  supposed  it  to  be  quite  irrational  and 
inadmissible,  which  after  all  may  be  not  only 
reasonable  in  itself,  but  also  in  accordance  with 


Introductory,  1 5 


all  the  progress  of  the  age,  and  all  the  discover- 
ies of  modern  science. 

It  is  to  this  form  of  Christianity,  accepted  as 
the  true  one  by  the  great  mass  of  those  who  call 
themselves  Christians,  and  understood  well  by 
them,  though  a  mystery  to  you,  that  I  propose 
very  shortly  to  invite  your  attention.  Let  us 
not  only  admit  that  it  may  be  true,  but  see 
just  what  it  is,  and  if  there  is  any  good  reason 
why  it  should  not  be  true. 

But  first  let  us  find  out  what  is  the  inherent 
weakness  of  the  Christian  systems  to  which  you 
have  been  accustomed ;  why  it  is  that  they  can- 
not reasonably  command  your  assent,  as  being 
based  on  an  unreasonable  assumption. 


CHAPTER  II. 

BIBI,K   PROTESTANTISM. 

WHAT  is  the  assumption  of  which  I  have 
just  spoken,  which  I  say  is  the  cause 
of  the  weakness  of  Christianity  as  generally 
understood  by  Englishmen  and  Americans,  and 
which  to  some  extent  justifies  them  in  thinking, 
as  I  have  said  many  do  think,  that  religion  is  a 
matter  of  the  heart,  not  of  the  head ;  that  it 
commends  itself  to  our  sentiments,  but  not  to 
our  rational  nature  ? 

It  is  that  the  Bible  is  the  sole  foundation  on 
which  the  Christian  religion  must  rest ;  not  only 
that  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation,  but  that  nothing  else  is  the  word 
of  God. 

Before  proceeding  farther,  I  would  ask  you  to 
observe  the  precise  point  here  noted.  It  is  not 
that  the  Bible  is  an  inspired  book,  and  the  only 
inspired  book  recognized  by  Christians ;  for  in 
that  the  Catholic  Church  agrees  with  Protes- 
tants, except  that  she  recognizes  as  belonging 
to  the  Bible  a  few  books  which  are  also  known 
and  read  by  Protestants,  which  though  some- 
times given  in  their  Bibles,  and  used  by  them  in 
their  churches,  are  considered  of  doubtful  or  of 


Bible  Protestantism,  ly 

merely  human  authority.  So  we  cannot  com- 
plain of  their  considering  the  Bible  as  God's 
Word  ;  for  all  that  they  recognize  as  such,  we 
also  recognize  in  like  manner. 

It  is  true  that  there  is  a  certain  unreasonable- 
ness, which  I  shall  speak  of  shortly,  in  Protes- 
tants maintaining  that  just  the.se  writings  are 
inspired  which  they  have  selected  for  their 
Bible ;  in  their  feeling  sure  that  every  one  of 
them  is  inspired  from  beginning  to  end,  and 
that  no  other  writing  is.  Catholics  have  a  rea- 
son for  confidence  in  their  Bible,  as  will  appear 
later  on  ;  but  Protestants  have  none  except  the 
general  acceptance  of  these  writings  by  Chris- 
tians, unless  they  fall  back  on  the  proof  which 
we  employ  ;  but  to  do  so  would  remove  the 
whole  basis  of  Protestantism  itself,  as  will  be 
seen  when  we  come  to  speak  of  that  proof. 

But  still  belief  in  the  Bible  is  not  in  itself  a 
fault  in  Protestants ;  on  the  contrary,  though  it 
is  somewhat  illogical  in  them,  we  should  and  do 
thank  God  that  they  have  retained  it ;  and  we 
wish  it  to  be  distinctly  understood  that  Catho- 
lics have  the  same  belief  in  and  reverence  for  it 
that  they  have,  and  even  more,  as  based  on  a 
more  sufficient  reason .  We,  even  more  than 
they,  regard  it  as  the  Word  of  God,  inspired  by 
Him,  and  of  conclusive  authority  in  matters  of 
religion.  Our  sermons,  like  those  of  Protes- 
tants, are  founded,  as  a  rule,  on  its  text,  and  de- 


1 8  Bible  Protestantism. 

voted  to  an  explanation  of  its  meaning.  Our 
people  are  recommended  to  read  it  with  the 
reverent  and  careful  attention  which  so  holy  a 
book  requires  and  deserves. 

That  the  Bible  is,  then,  a  foundation,  and  a 
great  and  certain  foundation,  of  the  Christian 
religion  is  not  the  assumption  which  is  the  prin- 
cipal weakness  of  Protestantism  ;  though  in  a 
sense,  as  being  with  them  an  unreasonable 
assumption,  it  is  a  weakness  too.  But  after  all, 
a  belief,  even  though  not  well  or  logically 
CvStablished  in  a  man's  mind,  is  good  if  it  be 
really  true  ;  nothing  false  or  ruinous  is  going  to 
come  from  it ;  on  the  other  hand,  it  has  in  itself 
the  germs  of  strength  and  life. 

This,  then,  is  not  the  dangerous  assumption 
which  has  split  Protestantism  into  so  many 
sects,  and  made  it  incapable  of  commanding  the 
rational  assent  of  man.  It  is  not  the  belief  that 
the  Bible  is  a  sure  foundation  for  the  Christian 
religion  that  has  done  the  harm ;  no,  it  is  the 
belief  that  it  is  its  sole  foundation. 

This  belief  is  absolutely  unreasonable  ;  for  it 
is  either  demonstrably  false,  or  destructive  of 
Christianity  itself.  Taken  in  the  sense  that  it 
is  the  only  foundation  Christianity  ever  had,  it 
is  clearly  false.  In  the  sense  that  it  is  the  only 
one  now  remaining,  the  foundation  it  gives  is  ob- 
viously inadequate  ;  Christianity  becomes  some- 
thing which  once  existed,  but  which  has  passed 


Bible  Protestantism.  19 

into  oblivion  ;  it  is  as  hopeless  for  us  to  acquire 
a  sufficient  knowledge  of  it  as  it  would  be  to 
know  thoroughly  the  manners  and  customs  of 
the  ancient  Assyrians.  We  cannot  tell  whether 
some  parts  of  our  religion  have  not  perished, 
quite  as  important  and  essential  as  those  which 
the  Bible  contains.  Practically,  then,  it  is  de- 
stroyed; it  exists  simply  as  a  wreck. 

Let  us  examine  these  two  statements,  and  see 
if  they  are  not  correct.  The  first  one  is,  that  the 
Bible  cannot  have  been  the  only  foundation  that 
ever  existed  for  Christianity. 

This  is,  we  may  say,  self-evident ;  that  is,  it 
requires  only  the  most  elementary  knowledge 
of  history  to  make  it  clear  to  any  one.  At  the 
time  when  the  apostles  set  out  to  preach  the 
gospel,  and  convert  the  world,  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  the  only  part  of  the  Bible  that  had 
been  written.  But  evidently  it  was  not  the  Old 
Testament  which  they  preached,  though  they 
certainl}^  used  it  to  confirm  their  preaching,  in 
very  much  the  same  way,  it  may  be  remarked, 
that  the  Catholic  Church  uses  the  whole  Bible 
to-day. 

No ;  the  bulk  of  their  preaching  was  their 
own  personal  testimony  to  the  great  revelation 
which  had  been  committed  to  their  care. 
They  spoke,  as  SS.  Peter  and  John  said  (Acts 
iv.  20),  the  things  which  they  had  seen  and 
heard;     as    St.     John     says     more     explicitly 


20  Bible  Protestantism. 

(I.  John  i.  3) ,  "  That  which  we  have  seen  and 
have  heard,  we  declare  unto  you."  They  had 
no  need  of  written  documents  to  remind  them 
of  these  wonderful  events,  which,  even  had  they 
tried,  they  could  not  forget. 

And  it  w^as  on  their  personal  testimony, 
supported  by  the  miracles  which  they  worked, 
and  which  made  it  evident  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  speaking  by  their  lips,  that  their  converts, 
the  first  Christians,  believed  in  Christ.  They 
read  no  Bible  ;  they  needed  none. 

After  a  while,  one  by  one,  the  books  of  the 
New  Testament  were  written  by  six  of  the  apos- 
tles, Peter,  Paul,  Matthew,  John,  James,  and 
Jude,  and  by  two  of  their  companions,  Mark 
and  Ivuke.  The  four  Gospels  were  written  to 
put  in  a  permanent  form  the  principal  events 
of  our  Lord's  life  and  death,  to  give  an  au- 
thentic record  of  it  for  posterity,  and  also  for 
the  use  of  those  who,  even  in  the  times  of  the 
apostles  themselves,  might  have  occasion  to  in- 
struct others  in  it,  and  who  had  not  perhaps  the 
advantage  of  being  eye-witnesses  of  what  they 
had  to  tell,  and  at  any  rate  not  the  special 
Divine  assistance  promised  to  the  apostles  them- 
selves. 

But  these  Gospels  were  necessarily  incom- 
plete accounts  of  the  great  matter  of  which  they 
treated;  St.  John  himself  says,  in  the  close 
of  his,  that  "there  are  also  many  other  things 


Bible  Protestantism,  2 1 

that  Jesus  did/'  and  to  show  that  he  does  not 
mean  merely  the  things  narrated  by  the  other 
evangelists,  but  not  by  himself,  he  adds,  that  if 
all  were  written,  the  world  could  not  contain  the 
books. 

It  is  impossible,  of  course,  to  take  these 
words  literally ;  but  still  they  mean  a  great 
deal.  And  let  it  not  l)e  said  now,  that 
these  other  things  omitted  by  the  evangelists 
were  unimportant ;  St.  John  evidently  is  not 
vSpeaking  of  such  things  as  walking,  eating,  or 
drinking,  but  of  miracles  which  our  Saviour 
worked,  or  instructions  which  He  gave. 
Indeed,  we  do  not  need  St.  John  to  tell  us  that 
our  Lord  must  have  said  much  more  to  His 
disciples  than  is  recorded  in  these  short  Gospels, 
and  especially  in  the  time  between  His  resur- 
rection and  ascension,  when  he  was,  as  St. 
Luke  tells  us  (Acts  i.  3),  *'for  forty  days  ap- 
pearing to  them  and  speaking  of  the  kingdom 
of  God." 

The  other  books  of  the  New  Testament,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Acts,  which  is  as  it  were  a 
continuation  of  the  Gospels,  but  in  a  certain 
way  still  more  incomplete,  being  principally 
occupied  with  the  acts  and  words  of  only  one 
of  the  apostles,  and  of  the  revelation  of  St. 
John,  which  we  can  hardly  use  confidently  on 
account  of  its  mysterious  nature,  are  epistles 
written  from  time  to  time,  evidently  principally 


22  Bible  Protestantism, 

to  Christians,  and  therefore  intended  not  so 
much  to  teach  the  world  Christian  truth  as  to 
instruct  Christians  more  fully,  or  to  remind 
them  of  what  they  had  already  been  told. 

It  is,  then,  perfectly  clear  that  the  apostles 
did  not  take  the  New  Testament  as  the  ground 
of  their  instructions.  It  w^ould  have  been  ab- 
surd for  them  to  use* each  other's  epistles  as  the 
basis  of  their  preaching  ;  the  Gospels  w  ere  no 
doubt  more  frequentl}^  appealed  to  as  time  went 
on.  But  substantiall}'  it  is  plain  that  Christian- 
it}'  went  on  during  the  first  century  with  com- 
paratively little  appeal  to  the  Bible,  and  wuth 
little  need  to  use  it.  And  it  could  not  have 
been  used  as  a  whole,  and  therefore,  according  to 
Protestant  ideas,  Christianit}'  must  have  labored 
under  great  difficulties  until  the  end  of  the  first 
century  ;  for  the  Bible  was  not  completed  till 
about  that  time.  I  trust,  then,  that  it  is  cleafr 
that  this  book,  holy  and  precious  as  it  undoubt- 
edly is,  was  not  the  principal  foundation  of 
Christianity^  in  the  early  Christian  times. 

Let  us  now  see  whether  the  view^  can  be 
held  that  it  is  the  only  foundation  on  which 
we  can  safely  rest  our  religion  now. 

The  Protestant  theory'  is  that  the  pure  Chris- 
tian truth,  as  held  in  the  days  when  the  Bible 
was  w^ritten,  w^as  gradually  corrupted  and 
obscured  by  human  additions  and  interpreta- 
tions ;  and  that  the  only  way  to  get  rid  of  these 


Bible  Protestantism.  23 

is  to  sweep  everything  else  away  at  one  stroke, 
and  depend  on  the  Bible  alone. 

Now,  it  must  be  respectfully  submitted  that 
this  theory  is  unsatisfactory.  For,  granting 
that  the  Bible  as  we  have  it  is  a  faithful  record, 
so  far  as  it  goes,  of  the  actions  and  teaching  of 
our  Lord  and  of  His  apostles,  and  that  the  pic- 
ture which  it  presents  of  primitive  Christianity 
is,  so  far  as  that  picture  is  clear  and  certain,  a 
true  one ;  nevertheless  it  is  plain  that  this 
record  and  this  picture  are  far  from  being  as 
complete  or  as  clear  as  they  should  be.  That 
the  text  of  the  Bible  is  not  clear  and  con- 
clusive on  many  points  of  doctrine  on  which  it 
does  treat,  is  sufficiently  prov^ed  by  the  ver>'  dis- 
cordances of  those  w^ho  attempt  to  deduce  doc- 
trine from  it  without  any  other  aid  ;  that  it  is 
not  complete  is  equally  manifest.  As  has  been 
said,  there  are  great  gaps  in  its  account,  notably 
its  almost  entire  silence  on  the  instructions 
given  by  our  Lord  during  the  time  of  His 
risen  life  on  earth ;  and  it  is  an  absolutely 
gratuitous  and  unwarrantable  assumption  to 
take  for  granted  that  the  matters  which  it  omits 
were  of  no  importance.  Now^here  is  it  said  in 
the  Bible  that  such  is  the  case.  Some,  it  is 
true,  imagine  that  St.  John  means  to  say  this, 
w^here  in  the  close  of  his  revelation — ^which  is 
also,  as  we  have  it,  the  close  of  the  Bible  itself — 
*  *  if  any  man  shall  add   to   these   things,    God 


24  Bible  Protestantism. 

shall  add  ui:to  him  thi  plagues  written  in  this 
book."  But  it  hardly  needs  to  be  remarked 
.  that  St.  John  speaks  here  of  the  prophecies 
contained  in  this  particular  book  of  revelation 
which  he  had  written  ;  for  the  Bible  itself  was 
not  collected  into  one  book  at  the  time  at  which 
he  was  writing. 

We  have,  then,  no  guarantee  that  there  are 
not  important  matters  of  Christian  faith  which 
are  not  to  be  found  in  the  Bible  at  all.  We 
may  indeed  say  that  the  points  accepted  by  the 
Catholic  Church  are  inconsistent  with  or  even 
contrary  to  the  Bible;  but  that  does  not  help 
us.  That  others  have  added  something  errone- 
ous does  not  show  that  there  was  nothing  true 
and  important  which  should  have  been  added. 
It  does  not  get  us  out  of  the  difficulty  that 
our  Bible  record  is  fragmentary.  If  we  use  it 
alone,  we  are  in  the  same  position  as  those 
would  be  who  should  try  to  construct  a  com- 
plete Roman  history  simply  out  of  the  books  of 
lyivy  or  Tacitus,  reliable  as  these  books  might 
be.  If  we  act  honestly,  we  must  ognfess  that 
we  have  no  certainty,  if  we  proceed  on  these 
lines,  that  we  have  the  whole  Christian  faith  or 
can  ever  obtain  it ;  it  is  something  which  the 
apostles  had,  but  which  has,  perhaps,  now  to  a 
great  extent  been  lost ;  we  have  some  pieces  of 
it,  but  not  with  any  certainty  the  whole.  It  is, 
as  has  been  said,    merely    a  wreck  which   has 


Bible  Protestantism,  25 

come  down  to  us.  Science,  it  is  true,  may  by- 
means  of  analogies,  and  the  general  plan  of  ani- 
mal construction,  fill  up  a  whole  skeleton  from  a 
few  bones  ;  but  we  cannot  do  that  with  a  thing 
so  unique  as  a  Divine  revelation. 

But,  it  may  be  argued,  half  a  loaf  is  better 
than  no  bread.  True ;  but  that  only  half  a 
loaf  in  this  case  vShould  be  left  us,  that  we  know 
less  of  the  Christian  faith  than  the  first  Chris- 
tians did,  w^ould  imply  an  imperfection,  a 
partial  failure  in  the  work  of  God  ;  it  would 
mean  that  He  undertook  to  make  a  revelation  to 
the  world,  and  failed  to  take  the  means  neces- 
sary to  perpetuate  it. 

If,  driven  from  this  idea  by  its  inconsistency 
with  the  Divine  Omnipotence,  we  say  that  all 
necessary  Christian  truth  must  have  come  down 
to  us  in  the  Bible,  we  are  simply  begging  the 
question  whether  or  no  anything  has  come 
down  to  us  outside  the  Bible.  We  cannot  dis- 
pose of  this  by  objecting  to  some  teachings  of 
the  Roman  Church ;  there  still  remains  a  possi- 
bility that  somewhere  or  other  some  body  of 
believers,  such  as  the  Greeks  for  example, 
may  be  in  possession  of  the  entire  revelation. 
We  cannot  be  excused  from  satisfying  ourselves 
by  thorough  investigation  on  this  point.  And 
we  should  also  be  sure  that  the  teachings  of 
Rome  are  really  inconsistent  with  the  Bible. 
Can  you  say  that  by  your  own  vStudy  you    are 


26  Bible  Protestantism, 

sure  of  this,  or  that  you  know  by  actual  inquiry, 
from  Catholic  authorities,  what  the  teachings 
of  Rome  really  are  ? 

If  Almighty  God  had  in  the  Bible  or  else- 
where told  us  that  this  book  contained  the 
whole  of  Christianit)^  we  should  be  on  good 
ground.  If  Christ  Himself  had  written  the 
book  and  set  it  forth  as  a  text- book,  so  to 
speak,  of  His  religion,  we  could  rest  securely  in 
it,  and  have  no  need  to  inquire  farther. 

That  the  Bible  is  not  a  book,  like  the  Koran 
for  instance,  set  forth  by  the  founder  of  the  re- 
ligion as  its  authoritative  exposition,  is  in  fact 
the  fundamental  weakness  of  Bible  Protestant- 
ism. If  Christ  had  intended  His  religion  to  be 
propagated  and  preseived  by  means  of  a  book, 
can  any  conceivable  reason  be  urged  why  He 
should  not  have  written  one  ?  Of  His  ability  to 
do  vSo  there  can,  for  the  Christian,  be  no  ques- 
tion. 

But  the  Bible,  so  far  from  being  such  a  book, 
is  simply,  as  far  as  the  New  Testament,  its  im- 
portant part  for  us,  is  concerned,  a  collection  of 
Christian  writings,  on  its  face  not  essentially 
more  conclusive  than  the  works  of  other  early 
Christian  writers  would  be,  especially  if  we 
consider  the  Gospel  of  St.  Mark,  and  the  Gospel 
and  Acts  of  St.  Luke ;  for  no  special  reason  is 
evident  why  their  words  should  be  infallible. 
They  were  not  apostles  ;  and  we  do  not  read  of 


Bible  Protestantism.  27 

their  having  any  peculiar  Divine  commission  to 
teach  Christianity  to  the  world. 

Now,  this  consideration  opens  another  chasm 
under  the  feet  of  Bible  Protestants,  which  would 
be  of  itself  fatal  to  them.  It  is  this  :  what 
certainty  have  they,  after  all,  that  the  books  of 
the  Bible  were  written  by  inspired  men,  and  that 
no  others  were  ?  Why  do  they  admit  just  these, 
and  reject  others  ?  How  do  they  know  for  sure 
even  that  these  were  written  by  the  authors  to 
whom  they  are  commonly  ascribed  ?  For  one 
thing,  do  they  know  for  sure  who  wrote  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  or  even  the  Gospeh 
themselves  ?  May  it  not  have  been  some  quite 
irresponsible  or  merely  private  author  ?  What 
critical  or  scholarly  ability  or  learning  can  ever 
give  us  the  certainty  we  need  on  matters  like 
these,  where  Divine  faith  is  so  much  needed, 
and  error  so  dangerous  ? 

The  fact  is,  that  this  blind  faith  in  the  Bible, 
as  Protestants  have  the  book,  got  together  for 
us  English-speaking  people  under  King  James, 
but  trusted  in  as  if  it  had  been  brought  to  earth 
visibly  and  publicly  by  an  angel  from  heaven, 
is  an  act  far  more  unreasonable  and  groundless 
than  any  which  they  even  charge  us  Catholics 
with  making. 

If  they  choose  to  make  such  a  blind  act, 
urging  the  example  of  so  many  good  men 
who   have    done    the    same,  or   claiming    that 


28  Bible  Protestantism, 

the  Spirit  of  God  teaches  them  to  do  it,  well 
and  good ;  but  let  them  not  claim  any  special 
superiority  of  intelligence,  or  any  particular 
reasonableness  in  so  doing.  lyct  them  not  pre- 
tend that  it  is  anything  more  than  an  assump- 
tion, in  itself,  to  say  the  least,  no  better  than 
that  of  one  who  would  believe  the  Pope  to  be 
infallible  simply  because  so  many  other  good 
people  believe  the  same,  or  because  God  seems 
to  inspire  him  with  that  conviction. 

Reason  is  as  much  abandoned  in  one  case  as 
in  the  other ;  but  the  latter  view  is  not  that  of  a 
Catholic,  and  I  think  we  shall  see  that  in  fact 
reason  has  a  good  deal  more  to  say  in  favor 
of  the  genuine   Catholic  position. 

And  I  will  repeat  in  conclusion,  lest  I  should 
seem  to  despise  this  holiest  of  books,  that 
Catholics  believe  in  it  and  revere  it  as  much  as 
and  even  more  than  Protestants;  but  we  have, 
while  they  have  not,  a  rational  and  consistent 
ground  for  .so  doing. 


CHAPTER  III. 

THK   CATHOLIC   IDKA   OF   CHRISTIANITY. 

THOUGH  others  beside  Bible  Protestants 
have  from  time  to  time  separated  them- 
selves, and  are  now  separated,  from  the  Catholic 
Church,  there  seems  to  be  no  distinct  theory  on 
which  they  have  done  so  which  we  need  especi- 
ally consider.  For  either  they  stand  on  ground 
similar  to  that  taken  by  Catholics,  which  we  are 
about  to  describe,  or  they  pretend  to  some  new 
revelation  supplementary  to  that  of  Christ, 
which  puts  them  outside  the  class  to  whom  this 
book  is  specially  addressed ;  or  they  have 
ceased  to  regard  Christ  as  a  Divine,  or  at  least 
infallible,  teacher,  being  in  fact  eclectics  in  the 
matter  of  religion,  and  not  believing,  strictly 
speaking,  in  any  one  true  religion  at  all,  and 
therefore  equally  outside  of  our  direct  scope. 

We  will  then  take  up  at  once  the  Catholic 
idea,  or  theory  if  you  wish  to  call  it  so,  of  the 
Christian  religion,  as  distinguished  from  that 
which  we  have  been  discussing. 

This  theory  simply  is  that  the  Christian  faith 
has  been  taught,  and  was  intended  by  its 
Divine  Founder  to  be  taught,  in  all  ages  on  the 
same  plan  that  was  adopted  in  the_be^inning ; 

^X^  Of  THK    ^>^ 

InKIVBESITT)] 


30  The  Catholic  Idea  of  Christianity. 

that  is  to  say,  by  authorized  human  teachers, 
whose  adherence  to  it  has  been  secured  by  a 
special  Divine  assistance,  as  that  of  the  apos- 
tles was  in  the  beginning. 

Now  this  is,  of  course,  an  impossible  plan  for 
a  merely  human  founder  of  a  religion.  A  mere 
man,  who  has  arrived  by  meditation  and  the 
practice  of  virtue  at  some  great  religious  truths, 
or  what  he  considers  as  such,  even  though  he 
also  believes  that  in  this  he  has  been  assisted  by 
Almighty  God  in  some  special  way,  cannot  feel 
safe  as  to  the  propagation  of  these  truths  with- 
out loss  or  admixture  by  simply  committing 
them  to  the  charge  of  other  men.  The  precise 
memory  of  what  he,  the  founder,  said  will 
gradually  be  lost ;  the  ideas  of  his  representa- 
tives will  after  a  time  be  confounded  with  his 
own.  Of  course  he  may  be  content  that  such 
should  be  the  case  ;  he  may  regard  the  religion 
which  is  taught  in  his  name  as  intended  by 
God  to  be  the  work  of  many  co-operators  ;  he 
lays  the  foundation,  others  continue  the  build- 
ing ;  and  perhaps  even  the  foundation  may  be 
somewhat  altered  or  improved  as  time  goes  on. 
But  a  religion  like  this  is  not  such  as  those 
whom  we  are  addressing  regard  the  Christian 
religion  to  be. 

For  a  human  founder,  then,  who  wishes  the 
record  of  his  ideas  to  be  perpetual ;  who  desires 
that  none  of  them  should  be  lost,  and  that  noth- 


The  Catholic  Idea  of  Christianity,         3 1 

ing  should  be  admitted  outside  of  them  in  the 
religion  which  he  establishes,  except  indeed 
what  the  light  of  nature  teaches  all  men,  no 
course  seems  to  be  open  except  to  commit  his 
ideas  or  his  religion  to  writing.  In  this  way 
there  can  remain  little  doubt,  except  what  may 
arise  from  the  errors  of  copyists  or  printers,  as 
to  what  lie  actually  said  ;  and  generally  these 
errors  will  be  slight  and  easily  detected. 

But  after  all,  though  it  is  the  best  course  he 
can  adopt,  it  is  open  to  serious  difficulties.  For 
no  language  can  be  made  so  plain  that  there 
will  not  be  an  opening  for  discussions  as  to  its 
meaning.  To  take  an  example  from  another 
matter,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
was  drawn  up  with  the  utmost  care  ;  but  for  all 
that  it  is  not  possible,  and  never  was  expected 
by  its  authors  to  be  possible,  for  every  one  to 
agree  on  its  meaning  without  a  court  to  inter- 
pret it. 

Now,  it  is  true  that  a  human  founder  of  reli- 
gion can  provide  for  such  a  court  of  interpreta- 
tion for  his  ideas,  and  his  provisions  will  proba- 
bly be  carried  out ;  but  he  cannot  possibly 
insure  that  the  ideas  of  this  -court  will  always 
agree  with  his  own.  His  own  thoughts  will 
then,  in  spite  of  all  he  can  do,  be  gradually 
changed  somewhat  by  the  gloss  put  upon  tliem 
by  his  interpreters. 

But  for  a  Divine  founder  these  objections  can- 


y 


32  The  Catholic  Idea  of  Christianity, 

not,  of  course,  exist.  God  is  able  to  keep  His 
truth  in  the  world  in  many  ways.  He  can,  for 
instance,  reveal  it  to  each  man  individually  ;  or 
He  can  by  repeated  public  manifestations  of  it, 
accompanied  by  miraculous  proofs  such  as  those 
furnished  by  Christ  and  His  apostles,  prevent 
the  world  from  forgetting  it ;  or  He  can  commit 
it  to  a  book,  as  a  human  founder  would,  pre- 
venting false  interpretations  of  that  book  by 
making  it  so  clear  that  it  could  not  be  misun- 
derstood, or  by  establishing  a  court  of  interpre- 
tation for  it,  the  decisions  of  which  He  would 
Himself  secure  from  error. 

But  on  the  Protestant  theory.  He  has  adopted 
neither  of  these  plans.  The  only  book  which 
they  admit  as  coming  from  Him  is  not  so  clear 
that  it  cannot  be  misunderstood,  nor,  according 
to  them,  has  any  court  been  established  by  Him 
for  its  correct  interpretation.  Some  of  them, 
indeed,  claim  that  He  does  reveal  it  to  every 
earnest  inquirer  without  the  aid  of  any  visible 
teacher,  but  the  actual  discordance  of  those  who 
claim  to  arrive  at  it  in  that  way,  or  even  with 
the  help  of  the  Bible,  is  enough  to  confute  that 
claim.  As  for  repeated  miraculous  manifesta- 
tions of  it,  siich  are  not  recorded  in  history. 

Other  methods  could  no  doubt  be  followed  by 
the  Divine  Wisdom,  beside  these  which  I  have 
mentioned;  but  we  cannot,  perhaps,  see  them 
very   clearly,    with   the   exception   of  one,   the 


The  Catholic  Idea  of  Christianity,        33 

simplest  of  all  that  we  know  of,  and  requiring 
the  least  special  intervention  on  God's  part. 
And  that  is  the  one  which  I  have  mentioned 
as  that  which  Catholics  believe  He  has  adopted 
through  the  whole  course  of  Christianity,  and 
which  Protestants  themselves  must  admit  He 
did  at  its  beginning. 

It  is  that  of  having  for  a  fundamental  author- 
ity in  all  ages,  for  a  means  of  deciding  all 
doubtful  points,  not  a  book  alone,  or  a  book 
with  authorized  interpreters,  but  simply  the  au- 
thorized i?iterpreters  of  the  faith  such  as  the 
apostles  were,  with  a  book  perhaps  to  help 
them,  but  still  not  absolutely  needing  that  book 
for  the  discharge  of  their  of&ce  any  more  than 
the  apostles  themselves  did  for  theirs. 

This  simple  plan  it  is  the  essential  point  of 
Protestantism  to  ignore  or  combat.  As  has 
been  seen,  they  have  nothing  satisfactory  or 
historically  successful  to  offer  in  place  of  it,  but 
it  they  will  not  admit. 

Some  Protestants,  like  those  of  the  Church  of 
England,  go  so  far  as  to  believe  in  an  organized 
and  Divinely  constituted  body  of  men,  estab- 
lished to  teach  and  preserve  the  faith  of  Christ  ; 
but  they  refuse  to  admit  a  Divine  supervision  of 
this  teaching,  at  least  of  such  a  kind  as  will 
enable  anyone  without  hesitation  to  know  just 
where  to  look  for  the  truth.  Their  ground,  as 
has  been  said,  is  similar  to  ours,  but  lacking  in 


34  The  Catholic  Idea  of  Christianity, 

this  important  respect.  And  history  shows  only 
too  plainly  that  the  Church,  in  their  sense  of 
the  term,  has  varied  in  its  doctrine,  taught  dog- 
mas at  various  times,  and  in  various  places  at 
the  same  time,  inconsistent  with  each  other,  and 
therefore  to  a  considerable  extent  erroneous. 

Protestants,  then,  and  indeed  all  Christians 
separated  from  the  Catholic  Church,  do  not 
acknowledge  the  existence  of  this  actual  living 
and  precisely  determinable  authorit}^  in  the 
world,  to  which  the  preservation  of  the  faith  has 
been  entrusted.  It  is,  indeed,  possible  to  with- 
draw from  the  government  and  discipline  which 
Catholics  believe  to  be  also  entrusted  to  this 
authority,  without  doubting  its. claim  to  be  the 
Divinely  constituted  teacher  of  the  faith;  but 
this  sort  of  rebellion  against  it,  which  we  call 
schism,  hardly  exists  pure  and  simple  at 
present ;  the  Greek  Church  furnishing,  how- 
ever, a  near  approximation  to  it. 

The  question  now  naturally  arising,  as  we 
examine  the  Catholic  theory,  is  where  precisely 
this  authority  is  located ;  who  are  the  succes  - 
sors  of  the  apostles,  not,  be  it  observed,  in  their 
inspiration,  or  in  their  power  of  working  mira- 
cles, but  in  this  office  so  needed  for  the  stability 
of  religion,  that  of  interpreting  the  true  meaning 
of  the  Christian  revelation,  and  of  deciding 
doubts  which  might  arise  about  it. 

Whoever  they  are,   they  must  be   men  dis- 


TJie  Catholic  Idea  of  Christianity,         35 

tinctly  recognizable  ;  not  merely  men  noted  for 
talent  or  learning,  or  even  for  virtue,  since  these 
tests  are  too  vague  and  doubtful.  They  must, 
therefore,  be  men  occupying  some  definite  posi- 
tion in  the  Church  ;  they  must  naturally  belong 
to  the  clergy,  since  teaching  the  faith  belongs 
to  them,  if  anything  does ;  and  to  the  highest 
and  most  distinguished  rank  of  the  clergy,  if 
such  ranks  exist  in  it. 

As  it  is,  then,  only  among  those  Christians 
who  recognize  such  ranks  or  grades  in  the 
clergy  that  this  belief  in  a  certain  living  author- 
ity in  matters  exists,  only  two  opinions  can  well 
exist  upon  this  point.  One  is,  that  the  whole 
body  of  bishops  must  be  called  to  a  council,  and 
that  this  council,  with  the  assistance  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  determines  the  faith  ;  or  that  one 
or  more  of  them  have  been,  by  a  special  Divine 
prerogative,  appointed  to  this  office. 

The  latter  is  the  teaching  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  as  formulated  in  the  Vatican  Council. 
Its  decision  necessarily  removes  the  doubts  of 
such  as  might  otherwise  have  held  that  the 
meeting  of  the  bishops  generally  was  necessary 
for  authoritative  judgments  on  points  of  faith ; 
for  here  they  have  their  own  authority  speak- 
ing. 

The  Vatican  Council,  then,  teaches  unequivo- 
cally that  the  supreme  power  in  determining 
matters  of  faith  rests  in  the  person  of  the  Pope, 


36  The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 

whom  Catholics  regard  as  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter  in  the  Apostolic  See  of  Rome. 

We  will  proceed,  then,  in  the  next  chapter  to 
discuss  this  matter  of  the  infallibility,  as  it  is 
called,  of  the  Pope;  to  explain  just  what  is 
meant  by  it,  and  to  remove  misapprehensions 
which  may  exist. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

THK     INFAI,I,IBII.ITY   OF   THK   POPE. 

IT  ought  to  be  clear  from  what  has  been  said 
that  the  special  prerogative  which  Catholics 
now  unhesitatingly  and  universally  believe  to 
have  been  conferred  on  the  Pope  by  the  Divine 
Founder  of  Christianity  has  a  very  special  and 
limited  range,  though  certainly  very  complete  in 
its  proper  domain.  It  consists  in  his  ability  to 
decide  questions  concerning  religion  about 
which  there  might  be  room  for  doubt  in  the 
minds  of  Christians,  either  on  account  of  there 
being  a  large  number  of  adherents,  or  apparentl}^ 
strong  arguments,  on  both  sides  of  the  ques- 
tions. Of  course  if  an  opinion  is  clearly  sup- 
ported by  the  plain  text  of  Scripture,  or  if  it  has 
been  held  by  general  consent  in  the  Church  as 
being  of  faith,  or  if  it  has  been  settled  by  a 
previous  decision,  there  is  no  need  for  the  Pope 
to  interfere  ;  and  in  point  of  fact  he  seldom  does 


The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  37 

so.  But  still  a  good  many  cases  have  occurred, 
and  probably  will  occur,  in  which  such  an  adju- 
dication becomes  necessary.  It  is  not  required 
that  an  appeal  should  be  made  to  him ;  he  acts 
as  it  seems  expedient  to  himself,  not  neglecting, 
however,  in  matters  of  considerable  doubt  to 
take  advice  from  learned  men. 

In  the  more  important  questions  which  occa- 
sionally arise,  it  has  always  been  deemed  more 
prudent  to  formally  convoke  the  whole  episco- 
pate in  a  general  or  oecumenical  council,  and  not 
only  to  hear  their  opinions,  but  to  take  their 
vote  on  the  matter;  for  the  bishops  are  not 
merely  advisers,  but  really  judges  of  the  faith 
with  the  Pope.  But  the  decision  of  their  major- 
ity would  not  be  accepted  unless  confirmed  by 
him. 

NoW;  let  it  be  clearly  understood  that  it  is  not 
the  office  of  the  Pope  to  act  as  one  inspired,  to 
receive  or  to  give  to  the  world  any  new  revela- 
tion. It  is  merely  to  decide  what  the  original 
deposit,  as  we  call  it,  of  faith  was,  as  committed 
by  Christ  to  His  apostles ;  or,  in  other  words,  to 
repeat  the  decisions  which  the  apostles  them- 
selves would  have  made  with  regard  to  the  doc- 
trines of  Christianity. 

Still  less  is  it  his  office  to  settle  matters  of 
science,  or  ordinary  questions  of  fact  of  any 
kind.  Not  but  what  the  domains  claimed  at 
least  by  science,  and  those  of  faith,  may  some- 


38  The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 

times  overlap  ;  as,  for  instance,  they  may  to  some 
extent  in  the  matter  of  evolution,  especially  if 
that  is  supposed  to  apply  to  the  human  soul ;  or 
as  they  certainly  do  when  so-called  science 
asserts  that  matter  existed  from  all  eternity.  I 
say  "so-called"  science,  for  it  is  plain  that  we 
can  never  by  scientific  investigation  arrive  at 
any  proof  of  a  hypothesis  of  this  nature.  And 
even  questions  of  historical  fact  may  belong  to 
faith,  by  being  necessarily  connected  with  some 
of  its  dogmas,  or  by  forming  part  of  the  inspired 
record  of  Holy  Scripture ;  *  there  would,  for 
instance,  be  a  conflict  of  history  or  geology  with 
the  Church  if  it  should  be  asserted,  in  the  name 
of  either  of  these  branches  of  learning,  that  the 
account  of  the  deluge  was  simply  a  myth. 

But  conflicts  of  this  sort  are  very  rare.  Prac- 
tically a  Catholic  is  not  impeded  in  any  kind  of 
study  or  investigation  by  any  fear  of  Papal  con- 
demnation. 

Further — and  this  is  an  important  and  much 
misapprehended  point — it  would  be  an  enor- 
mous mistake  to  suppose  that  the  Pope  is  con- 
sidered infallible,  even  on  matters  of  faith,  in 
his  ordinary  conversation  ;  nor  is  he  believed 
to  be  so  in  preaching  ;  nor  necessarily  in  his 
writings  concerning  matters  of  religion.  In  or- 
der that  he  should  be  infallible,  it  is  necessary 
that  he  should  act  formally  as  the  teacher  of  the 
whole  Church,  as  the  successor  of  the  apostles  ; 


The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  39 

and  practically  we  may  say  it  is  necessary  that 
his  teaching  should  not  be  given  by  word  of 
mouth,  but  in  writing,  in  a  regular  document ; 
for  if  he  merely  spoke,  some  uncertainty  would 
exist  as  to  what  he  actually  said,  whatever 
means  might  be  taken  to  report  it. 

And  yet,  though  all  this  is  well  known  and 
understood  among  Catholics,  how  many  Pro- 
testants there  are  who  imagine  that  we  believe 
the  Pope  to  be  incapable  of  error,  no  matter 
what  he  is  speaking  about,  or  in  what  way  or 
under  what  circumstances  he  expresses  his 
thoughts  ;  or  perhaps  that  we  even  regard  him 
as  infallible  in  the  very  thoughts  themselves  ! 

Great  as  this  error  is,  many  fall  into  an  error 
much  greater.  It  is  often  supposed,  indeed  we 
sometimes  see  it  stated,  or  what  is  even  worse, 
calmly  assumed,  in  the  literature  of  the  day, 
that  Catholics  believe  the  Pope  to  be  incapable 
of  ^^^V^^  anything  morally  wrong.  Infallibility 
is  confounded  with  impeccability.  One  would 
suppose  that  the  English  language  would  be 
better  understood ;  indeed,  on  other  subjects  the 
writers  of  this  nonsense  seem  to  be  men  of  fair 
accuracy.  It  is  only  in  speaking  of  us  that 
they  make  these  absurd  blunders. 

This  whole  notion  is  simply  ridiculous. 
Good  Catholics  have,  indeed,  generally  a  re- 
spect for  the  clergy ;  at  least  they  have  a  high 
idea  of  what  their  character  should  be,  and  when 


40  The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 

the  clergy  live  fairly  good  lives,  are  disposed  to 
rate  their  virtue  as  greater  than  it  actually  is ; 
and  especially,  they  believe  the  Pope,  unless  the 
contrary  should  be  plainly  evident,  to  be  a  man 
of  more  than  the  usual  moral  excellence  which 
they  ascribe  to  the  clergy  in  general.  And  they 
have  reason  for  doing  so  ;  for  it  is  clear  before- 
hand that  the  Church  would,  if  we  may  say  so, 
be  naturally  inclined  to  put  its  best  foot  fore- 
most ;  and  also  the  actual  lives  of  the  Popes,  as 
recorded  in  history,  show  plainly  that  they  were 
as  a  rule  most  estimable,  perhaps  even  saintly, 
men. 

But  they  are  very  far  from  thinking  that  this 
is  necessarily  the  case.  So  far  from  thinking 
that  an  action  is  right  simply  because  the  Pope 
does  it,  they  would  be  more  scandalized  at  a 
departure  from  the  moral  law  in  his  case  than 
they  would  in  that  of  any  one  else  ;  just  as  it  is 
perfectly  obvious  that  they  are  more  disedified 
by  a  sin  in  any  clergyman  than  by  the  same  one 
in  a  layman. 

It  is  of  course  true,  however,  that  in  points 
about  which  the  conscience  of  men  is  more  or 
less  uncertain,  Catholics,  and  Protestants  as 
well,  are  inclined  to  think  it  probable  that  an 
action  is  right  if  they  see  a  clergyman  do  it ; 
for  they  know  that  the  clergy  give  more  study 
to  these  matters,  and  believe  that  they  would  as 
a  rule  act  according  to  their  conscience,  which 


The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  41 

would  naturally  be  better  instructed  than  that 
of  the  laity  in  general.  But  Catholics  do  not, 
any  more  than  Protestants,  hold  it  as  certain 
that  any  clergyman,  or  that  the  Pope  any  more 
necessarily  than  any  other  clergyman,  does 
2iniformly  act  according  to  his  conscience. 

And  let  me  mention  here,  though  it  is  a 
little  out  of  our  direct  line,  another  foolish 
error  entertained  largely  about  the  Pope,  which 
seems  to  be  a  sort  of  corollary,  as  a  geometer 
would  say,  or,  in  other  words,  an  easy  conclu- 
sion from  his  supposed  impeccability.  That  is 
the  notion  often  entertained  by  those  outside 
the  Catholic  Church,  that  the  Pope  never  goes 
to  confession.  Some  even  think  that  the  clergy 
do  not ;  but  more  are  quite  sure  that  the  Pope 
is  exempt. 

But  so  far  is  this  from  being  the  case  that 
the  clergy  confess  much  more  frequently  than 
the  laity  in  general  ;  and  the  Pope  himself  fully 
as  often  as,  if  not  oftener  than  the  average  of 
the  clergy.  And  to  whom  does  the  Pope 
confess  ?  Why,  he  chooses  his  confessor, 
as  any  one  else  would  do ;  usually  he  would 
select  some  priest  of  well-known  virtue  and 
learning ;  probably  he  would  choose  a  member 
of  some  religious  order — for  example,  a  Fran- 
ciscan, a  Dominican,  or  a  Jesuit.  You  see  then 
clearly  that  the  Pope  himself  does  not  believe 
that  he  is  sinless. 


42  The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 

This  matter  of  morality  of  which  I  have  been 
speaking  has,  however,  a  connection  with  the 
infallibility  which  we  are  discussing,  though 
not  the  one  which   is  erroneously  supposed. 

It  is  this :  Catholics  do  believe  the  Pope  to 
be  able  to  make  infallible  decisions  with  regard 
to  morals  as  well  as  faith.  That  is  to  say,  that 
he  can,  when  occasion  arises,  solemnly  instruct 
the  faithful  with  regard  to  principles  of  morality, 
and  decide  points  with  regard  to  it  on  which 
good  and  learned  men  have  differed  ;  and  there 
are  plenty  of  such  points,  as  any  one  will  see 
who  will  take  the  trouble  to  consult  treatises  on 
morals.  One  will  find  even  more  of  them  in 
Catholic  works  than  in  Protestant  ones ;  not, 
however,  for  the  reason  that  Catholic  morality 
is  less  precise  than  Protestant,  but  because 
Catholic  writers  have  discussed  these  matters 
much  more  thoroughly  and  with  much  more 
detail,  and  hence  come  upon  more  of  these 
questions ;  and  that  the  Popes  have  still  left 
many  of  them  open. 

But  mind,  it  by  no  means  follows,  any  more 
in  morals  than  in  faith,  that  because  the  Pope 
can  solemnly  instruct  the  faithful  infallibly,  he 
always  or  on  all  occasions  holds  or  gives  utter- 
ance to  correct  views  with  regard  to  right  or 
wrong,  unless  the  matter  is  one  clear  to  all  rea- 
sonable men,  or  that  some  decision  has  actually 
been  made  in  due  form  with  regard  to  it. 


The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  43 


Still  less  does  it  follow  that  he  necessarily 
lives  up  to  the  principles  which  he  himself 
acknowledges  as  true.  There  is  no  essential 
reason  why  he  should  do  so,  any  more  than  any 
one  else. 

Now  a  few  remarks,  more  explicit  than  those 
previously  made,  with  regard  to  the  way  in 
which  we  suppose  the  infallibility  to  attach  to 
the  Pope's  solemn  teaching  of  the  Church  with 
regard  to  faith  and  morals.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  clear,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  he  is 
not  habitually  raised  to  an}'-  higher  plane  in 
these  matters  than  other  Christians;  for  it  is 
only  at  the  time  of  his  formal  decisions  that  he 
needs  to  be,  and  we  do  not  suppose  his  preroga- 
tive to  extend  any  farther  than  is  needed  for  the 
good  of  the  Church.  Secondly,  we  do  not  hold 
that  even  at  these  times  he  is,  properly  speak- 
ing, inspired  ;  it  is  simply  that  God  assists  him 
in  a  special  way,  preventing  him  from  making 
any  decision  at  all  if  the  wa}'  is  not  reasonably 
clear  to  it ;  or  if  He  allows  him  to  make  the 
decision,  insuring  that  this  decision  shall  con- 
tain nothing  contrary  to  the  truth. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  these  formal  decisions,  or 
definitions  as  we  call  them,  are  not  made  care- 
lessly or  on  the  spur  of  the  moment,  but  after 
much  consideration  and  prayer,  especially  in 
the  more  important  matters,  and  even  in  lesser 
ones  where   reasonable   doubt  seems   to  exist. 


44  The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 

And  in  the  greater  matters,  much  advice  is  also 
taken,  especially  of  the  bishops,  who,  as  has 
been  said,  are  regarded  as  judges  on  these 
questions  together  with  the  Pope ;  and  often 
this  precaution  has  gone  so  far  as  the  assem- 
bling of  a  general  council,  where  the  subject 
could  be  fully  discussed. 

I  trust,  then,  that  this  much  misunderstood 
subject  ought  to  be  somewhat  clearer  to  those 
who  may  read  what  has  been  just  said  than  it 
was  before.  And  let  me  add  now,  as  a  little 
argument  \\\  support  of  the  belief  that  Almighty 
God  does  actually  preserve  these  Papal  defini- 
tions from  error,  the  historical  fact  that  no  two 
of  them  have  ever  been  contradictory,  and  they 
have  all  formed  with  each  other,  and  with  the 
faith  as  determined  and  agreed  on  without  re- 
course to  them,  a  logical  and  consistent  whole. 
Human  reason,  memory,  research,  and  learn- 
ing are  no  doubt  factors  which  would  go  far  to 
produce  such  a  result ;  but  human  passions  are 
also  potent ;  and  it  seems  very  unlikely  that 
such  a  success  would  be  obtained,  covering  a 
period  of  eighteen  hundred  years,  by  human 
resources  alone. 

But  still  it  may  be  said  that  this  Divine  inter- 
position is  a  miracle  which  we  have  no  right  to 
expect.  Let  us  look  into  this.  It  is  true  that 
the  whole  Christian  revelation  is  a  blessing  to 
which  we   have  no  right ;    but  if  God  wills  to 


The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope.  45 


give  something  to  mankind  in  permanence,  it  is 
reasonable  to  suppose  that  He  will  take  mea- 
sures to  secure  that  permanence.  And  could 
any  simpler  measures,  any  requiring  less  inter- 
position on  His  part,  be  adopted,  so  far  as  we 
can  see  ?  Protestants  give  us  a  book ;  they 
acknowledge  that  it  is  naturally  obscure  in 
some  parts,  but  say  that  God  will  enlighten  the 
reader  as  to  its  meaning.  I  say  nothing  about 
the  confutation  of  this  theory  by  actual  experi- 
ence ;  but  in  itself  it  is  plain  that  it  requires 
even  more  interposition  on  God's  part  for  each 
individual  Christian  than  the  Catholic  one  does 
for  the  Pope  alone. 

Catholics  claim  that  the  Pope  is  infallible  on 
certain  occasions ;  Protestants  that  each  and 
every  one  of  them  is  infallible  all  the  time. 
Which  claim  is  the  greater  or  the  more  un- 
reasonable ? 

Some  one  must  be  infallible,  now  and  then  at 
least,  or  certainty  with  regard  to  the  Christian 
faith  becomes  impossible.  Why  should  it  not 
be  the  Pope,  who  occupies,  as  is  admitted  even 
by  Protestants  themselves,  the  most  prominent 
position  in  Christendom  ? 

But  let  us  see  briefly  whether  there  are  not 
arguments,  drawn  from  the  Holy  Scripture 
itself,  to  show  that  the  Pope  must  be  the  one  to 
whom  this  special  prerogative  has  been  given, 
if  given  to  any. 


46  The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 


We  find,  if  we  read  the  Gospels  attentively, 
that  our  Lord,  though  giving  to  each  of  the 
apostles  the  same  general  commission  to  teach 
all  nations  (Matt,  xxviii.  19),  did  not  treat  them 
on  terms  of  absolute  equality.  Peter,  James, 
and  John  were,  in  the  first  place,  specially  se- 
lected by  Him  as  witnesses  of  His  transfigura- 
tion, and  His  agony  in  the  garden  of  Gethse- 
mane.  Of  these  James  had  the  privilege  of 
being  first  called  to  join  His  Master  in  heaven  ; 
John  of  being  His  specially  beloved  disciple, 
and  the  one  to  whom  Jesus  on  the  cross  en- 
trusted the  care  of  His  mother,  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary. 

But  it  was  to  Peter  that  He  gave  the  most 
marked  signs  of  a  special  pre-eminence  over  the 
rest.  Especially  do  we  see  this  in  the  cele- 
brated passage  (Matt.  xvi.  18)  where  Christ 
says  to  him,  ''Thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this 
rock  I  will  build  my  church  "  ;  the  word 
Peter  meaning  a  rock.  And  in  St.  Luke's 
Gospel  we  read  (Luke  xxii.  31):  ''The  Lord 
said,  Simon,  Simon,  behold  Satan  hath  desired 
to  have  you,  that  he  may  sift  you  as  wheat. 
But  I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail 
not ;  and  thou  being  once  converted,  confirm 
thy  brethren."  (The  italics  are,  of  course,  our 
own.)  And  St.  John  tells  us  (John  xxi.  15-17) 
that  our  Lord  thrice  committed  in  a  special  way 
the  charge  of  His  lambs  and  sheep  to  Peter,  in 


The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope.  47 

response  to  his  protestation  of  love  for  his 
Master  :  ''Feed  my  lanibs,  feed  my  lambs,  feed 
my  sheep." 

Protestants  try,  of  course,  to  explain  away 
these  passages ;  but  it  is  hard  to  imagine  that 
they  do  not  place  St.  Peter  in  some  way  at  the 
head  of  the  apostolic  college,  and  as  having  in  a 
special  way  the  right  of  governing  and  teach- 
ing the  faithful  which  all  the  apostles  enjoyed. 
The  real  question  is  rather  whether  or  no  this 
pre-eminence  of  Peter  passed  to  any  one  at  his 
death ;  whether  he  had  any  successor  in  his 
special  privileges. 

But  one  thing  seems  quite  clear:  that  there 
could  be  no  one  to  whom  any  special  pre- 
eminence could  be  assigned  as  a  permanent  in- 
stitution in  the  Church,  except  some  one  who 
was  in  some  special  sense  the  successor  of  St. 
Peter. 

Now,  no  one  has  even  claimed  to  be  the  suc- 
cessor of  St.  Peter  in  any  special  way  whatever 
except  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  in  which  city,  by 
the  common  consent  of  Christians,  it  has  been 
generally  agreed  St.  Peter  fixed  his  ultimate 
residence,  and  in  which  he  suffered  martyrdom. 
No  one  else  except  the  Bishop  of  Antioch, 
which  city  St.  Peter  first  chose  for  his  see,  could 
reasonably  make  such  a  claim  ;  and  on  his  part 
no  such  claim  has  been  urged. 

If,  then,  there   is  any  one  who  has   a   claim 


48  The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope, 

founded  in  Scripture  to  any  pre-eminence  over 
the  bishops  of  the  Church  in  general,  that  one 
must  be  the  bishop  of  St.  Peter's  see  of  Rome  ; 
and  indeed  this  distinction  has  been  generally 
accorded  in  some  way  or  shape  to  this  bishop, 
or,  in  other  words,  to  the  Pope,  even  by  those 
who  have  separated  themselves  from  his  con- 
trol. 

There  is,  in  short,  no  plausible  candidate 
for  the  leadership  of  the  Church  except  the 
Pope;  and  there  never  has  been  one  except 
him,  who  could  rest  his  claim  on  Scriptural 
grounds. 

If,  then,  this  office  of  infallible  teacher  of  the 
faith,  or  restorer  of  it  when  it  may  in  the  lapse 
of  time  become  doubtful,  this  office  which  has 
been  shown  to  be  the  means  by  which  the  faith 
could  be  preserved  with  the  minimum  of  Divine 
interposition,  belongs  to  any  one,  it  is  to  the 
Pope  that  it  would  naturally  belong  ;  and  he  is 
the  only  one  who  has  permanently  claimed  or 
exercised  it,  no  pretensions  on  the  part  of 
others  having,  we  may  say,  been  seriously 
made  or  entertained. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  the  Catholic  claim 
of  the  Pope's  infallibility,  after  the  manner 
which  has  been  described,  is  both  reasonable 
and  Scriptural.  I  do  not  propose  here  to  go 
into  a  further  proof  of  it,  or  a  defence  of  it 
against  objections  which  might  be  made ;  to  do 


The  Infallibility  of  the  Pope,  49 

so  properly  would  require  a  volume ;  and  such 
volumes  have  been  written,  and  can  be  con- 
sulted by  all.  But  I  do  submit  that  this  Catho- 
lic claim  or  theory,  so  far  from  being  supersti- 
tious or  unreasonable,  is  prima  facie  the  most 
reasonable  one  that  can  be  urged  (especially 
when  we  consider  actual  historical  facts) ,  if  we 
assume  that  the  ChrivStian  religion  was  a  de- 
finite teaching  of  supernatural  truths  to  be  per- 
petuated to  the  end  of  time  ;  and  that  its  superi- 
ority in  reasonableness  to  the  theory  either  that 
the  Bible  was  originally  intended  to  be,  or  that 
it  now  has  become  in  the  providence  of  God,  the 
only  means  available  for  this  end,  is  obvious  on 
the  very  surface  to  any  one  who  will  give  the 
matter  any  serious  consideration. 

In  the  next  chapter  I  will  proceed  to  explain 
the  exalted  opinion  which  Catholics  have,  and 
the  use  which  we  make,  of  that  most  holy  and 
venerable  book,  the  Bible ;  to  show  that  we 
regard  it  as  truly  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  state 
the  reasons  which  we  have  for  doing  so. 


CHAPTER  V. 

TH^   CATHOIvIC   IDKA   OF  THK   BIBI^K. 

IT  has  been  stated  that  Catholics  regard  the 
Bible  as  the  Word  of  God,  and  revere  it  as 
such,  no  less  than ,  Protestants ;  and  indeed 
even  more.  We  look  on  it,  then,  as  a  most 
certain  testimony  to  the  Christian  religion,  and 
a  most  pure  source  from  which  to  obtain  the 
true  faith.  We  reject  nothing  which  it  con- 
tains, we  accept  it  as  a  most  precious  gift  of 
God,  from  beginning  to  end. 

We  accept,  indeed,  more  of  it  than  Protestants 
do.  For,  as  has  been  said,  there  are  some 
books,  which  all  belong,  by  the  way,  to  the  Old 
Testament,  which  we  have  in  our  Bibles,  but 
which  are  omitted  from  most  Protestant  ones., 
In  other  words,  Protestants,  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  reformed  the  Bible  as  well  as  a 
good  many  other  things ;  they  dropped  from  it 
a  number  of  books  which  their  forefathers  for 
centuries  had  considered  as  forming  a  part  of  it. 

And  now  let  us  see  what  reason  we  have  for 
accepting  the  Bible  as  we  have  it.  It  is  hard  to 
see  how  a  Protestant  can  have  absolute  cer- 
tainty that  all  the  books  of  his  Bible  are  in- 
spired. If  he  makes  a  study  of  the  matter,  he 
50 


The  CatholicTdea  of  tJtc  Bihksf^^%^^^ 

-^gj^^ 

will  find  that  many  learned  men  doubt  even  the 
authenticity  of  great  portions  of  it ;  so  he  can- 
not rCvSt  his  faith  in  it  on  a  general  agreement 
among  wise  men  that  it  was  really  written  by 
the  authors  to  whom  it  is  commonly  assigned. 
Nor  can  he  defend  it  on  the  ground  that  all 
pious  and  faithful  Christians  have  always 
believed  its  various  books  to  have  come  from 
the  writers  to  which  they  are  usually  ascribed, 
or  that  they  have  always  considered  them  as 
inspired  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Of  course  there 
is  a  difference  between  these  two  beliefs ;  there 
seems,  for  instance,  to  be  no  obvious  reason,  as 
has  been  remarked,  why  the  writings  of  Mark 
or  lyuke,  even  if  we  are  sure  we  have  them, 
should  be  inspired  any  more  than  those  of  any 
other  of  the  early  Christians. 

The  fact  is,  that  during  all  the  ages  of  perse- 
cution— that  is,  during  the  first  three  centuries 
of  Christianity,  and  for  a  considerable  time 
after — though  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament 
had  been  accepted  from  the  Jews,  those  of  the 
New  were  still  by  no  means  put  in  a  definite 
shape.  Eusebius,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  the  cele- 
brated ecclesiastical  historian,  writing  in  the 
early  part  of  the  fourth  century,  tells  us  that 
several  of  the  books  we  now  accept  were  then  in 
doubt. 

He  says,  for  instance,  in  the  first  book  of  his 
history,  with  regard  to  the   second  Epistle  of 


52  The  Catholic  Idea  of  the  Bible. 

St.  Peter:  "We  have  not,  indeed,  understood  it 
to  be  embodied  with  the  sacred  books,  yet  as  it 
appeared  useful  to  man}^,  it  was  studiously  read 
with  the  other  Scriptures"  (chap,  iii.)  And 
in  another  place  (chap,  xxiv.)  he  remarks, 
"Besides  the  Gospel  of  John,  his  first  Epistle  is 
acknowledged  without  dispute,  both  by  those 
of  the  present  day,  and  also  by  the  ancients. 
The  other  two  Epistles,  however,  are  disputed. 
The  opinions  respecting  the  Revelation  are  still 
greatly  divided."  A  little  later  on  (chap,  xxv.) 
he  gives  the  following  canon  of  the  New 
Testament,  quite  in  full:  "Here,  among  the 
first,  must  be  placed  the  holy  quaternion  of  the 
Gospels ;  these  are  followed  by  ^  The  Book  of 
the  Acts  of  the  Apostles '  ;  after  this  must  be 
mentioned  the  Epistles  of  Paul,  which  are 
followed  by  the  acknowledged  first  Epistle  of 
John,  as  also  the  first  of  Peter,  to  be  admitted 
in  like  manner.  After  these  are  to  be  placed, 
if  proper,  the  Revelation  of  John,  concerning 
.  which  we  shall  offer  the  different  opinions  in 
due  time.  These,  then,  are  acknowledged  as 
genuine.  Among  the  disputed  books,  although 
they  are  well  known  and  approved  by  many,  is 
reputed  that  called  the  Epistle  of  James  and 
Jude.  Also  the  'second  Epistle  of  Peter,'  and 
those  called  the  'second  and  third  of  John,' 
whether  they  are  of  the  evangelist  or  some 
other   of    the    same    name."     He    also    states 


The  Catholic  Idea  of  the  Bible.  53 

further  on  that  a  good  deal  of  doubt  existed  as 
to  the  authorship  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  ; 
this  point  is,  indeed,  at  the  present  time  a  good 
deal  discussed  by  critics. 

It  is  evident,  then,  that  in  the  time  of 
Eusebius  no  certainty  was  felt  as  to  precisely 
what  books  of  the  New  Testament  should  be 
admitted  as  being  of  authority.  Various  other 
authors,  previous  and  subsequent  to  Eusebius, 
give  somewhat  different  catalogues  of  the 
sacred  books. 

Now,  the  point  is  when  and  in  what  way  the 
canon  of  the  New  Testament  was  first  definitely 
.settled  on ;  that  is,  settled  by  an  authority 
which  might  seem  at  least  to  speak  in  the  name 
of  the  Church,  and  not  merely  in  that  of  private 
criticism  or  learning. 

The  first  Christian  sy;iod  which  we  find  as 
sanctioning  a  special  canon,  or  collection  of 
books  as  properly  belonging  to  the  Bible,  was 
that  of  Hippo,  in  Africa,  in  the  year  393.  This 
canon  of  Hippo  was  confirmed  by  councils  held 
at  Carthage  in  397  and  419,  and  in  474,  as 
nearly  as  can  be  ascertained,  by  Pope  GelavSius. 
This  canon  is  identical  wdth  that  now  held  as 
the  correct  one  by  Catholics,  and  solemnly 
repeated  in  the  Council  of  Trent,  at  the  time  of 
the  Reformation.  It  contains,  therefore,  what 
Protestants  call  the  apocryphal  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  but  it  rejects  none  of  those  which 


54  The  Catholic  Idea  of  the  Bible, 

Protestants  receive ;  in  the  new  Testament 
there  is  no  difference  between  the  two,  the 
Protestants  having  taken  the  same  books  as 
genuine  and  inspired  which  the  Catholic 
Church  had  so  regarded,  and  no  others. 

Now,  it  is  quite  manifest  why  Catholics  re- 
gard just  such  books  as  belonging  to  the  Bible, 
and  such  others  as  not  so  belonging.  It  is 
because  such  is  the  decision  of  the  Church 
assembled  in  council,  and  of  the  Popes  acting 
in  their  official  capacity.  Whatever  one  may 
think  of  it,  it  is  evidently  a  clear  and  intelli- 
gible reason  ;  for  we  regard  the  Church  and  the 
Popes  as  infallible  in  such  matters. 

But  what  solid  reason  have  Protestants  to 
induce  them  to  accept  any  definite  canon  of 
Scripture  ?  Not  the  decrees  of  the  Popes  or  the 
councils  of  the  Church  of  course,  for  these  they 
do  not  accept  in  other  matters.  And  if  not 
these,  what  else  ?  Why  is  the  canon  of  Pope 
Gelasius  any  better  for  them  than  the  one  we 
have  given,  from  Eusebius,  the  historian?  It 
becomes  for  them  simply  a  matter  of  private 
judgment  whether  a  certain  book  of  the  Bible 
is  inspired  or  not ;  and  therefore  since  the  Bible 
is  all  they  have  as  an  authoritative  basis  for 
Christianity,  the  strength  of  this  sole  authority 
becomes  thus  a  matter  of  private  judgment; 
many,  if  not  most  of  its  books  become  not  sub- 
stantially  better  than   others   written  in   early 


The  Catholic  Idea  of  the  Bible,  5  5 

Christian  times  which  might  be  used  instead  of 
them  ;  and  indeed  the  whole  matter  of  faith 
reduces  to  private  judgment.  The  Protestant 
has  no  sure  ground  to  rest  on  ;  he  can  only 
construct  his  religion  by  selecting  what  it  seems 
probable  to  him  was  the  teaching  of  Christ. 
He  can,  of  course,  adopt  other  people's  opin- 
ions ;  but  they  also  can  have  for  him  no  more 
than  a  human  value. 

But  after  all,  it  may  be  urged,  how  is  your 
own  basis  a  sure  one  ?  You  have  been  proving 
the  Church,  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope,  etc., 
by  meaqs  of  the  Bible,  and  now  you  turn  round 
and  prove  the  Bible  by  the  Church. 

This  criticism  seems  at  first  to  be  a  very 
sound  one, "but  it  is  not  vSO  sound  as  it  appears. 
For  we  all  have  to  start  with  some  recorded 
facts,  some  testimony  of  others,  in  convincing 
ourselves  about  any  matter  of  fact  which  has 
not  come  under  our  own  personal  observation. 
And  it  is  absurd,  and  contrary  to  common 
sense,  to  say  that  we  can  never  arrive  at  cer- 
tainty in  this  way.  If  we  cannot,  then  we 
are  not  certain  about  any  point  of  history ;  we 
do  not  know  for  sure  that  there  was  ever  such  a 
person  as  George  Washington  or  Christopher 
Columbus.  Nay  more,  without  depending  on 
testimony  we  cannot  be  confident  that  there  is 
now  any  such  country  as  England  or  France, 
unless  we  have  been  there  ourselves ;  even  the 


56  The  Catholic  Idea  of  the  Bible, 

answers  we  receive  to  letters  which  we  under- 
take to  send  there  may  be  part  of  a  gigantic 
con.spiracy  set  up  against  us  by  the  Post-office. 

Very  well  then  ;  to  prove  that  there  was  such 
a  person  as  Christ,  and  to  arrive  at  some 
knowledge  of  what  He  said  and  did,  we  take 
the  accounts  which  have  come  down  to  us, 
either  committed  to  writing,  or  handed  down  by 
word  of  mouth  from  one  generation  to  another. 
We  find  them  concurrent  to  a  considerable  ex- 
tent, and  we  find  especiall}^  those  accounts  so 
concurrent  which  are  written  in  wliat  we  call 
the  Bible  ;  and  the  very  fact  that  these  latter 
agree  well  with  each  other,  that  they  have  l)een 
considered  in  all  ages  as  substantially  correct, 
and  that  we  find  in  history  no  serious  protest 
against  them,  and  a  general  agreement  as  to 
their  authorship,  gives  us  more  certainty  as  to 
what  they  contain  than  we  have  with  regard  to 
almost  any  facts  which  occurred  at  the  time 
they  appeared.  We  have,  then,  a  more  reason- 
able certainty  about  Christ,  and  what  He  did 
and  vSaid,  than  we  have  about  past  events  not 
coming  under  our  own  observation. 

We  find,  then,  with  this  reasonable  certainty, 
from  the  Bible  record,  that  He  established  a 
Church,  and  constituted  an  infallible  authority 
in  it,  to  last  to  the  end  of  time  ;  so  far,  that  is, 
as  it  is  admitted  that  this  really  is  the  testimony 
of  the  Bible. 


*  The  Catholic  Idea  of  the  Bible,  57 

Then,  being  convinced  of  the  existence  of 
this  authority,  by  means  of  it  we  establish,  not 
what  we  started  with,  but  something  different. 
We  are  not  convinced  by  the  Church  that  there 
is  a  Bible  record,  and  that  in  its  main  points  it 
can  be  relied  on  with  certaint}^  ;  for  this  we 
knew  before.  But  the  Church  tells  us  that  this 
book  has  more  than  a  merely  human  au- 
thority, that  it  is  the  Word  of  God,  inspired  by 
Him;  and  that  just  such  writings  and  such 
alone  can  be  considered  as  belonging  to  it. 
This  last  is  something  we  did  not  know  before  ; 
but  our  conviction  of  it  rests  on  the  same 
rational  grounds  as  our  first  conviction  did  that 
it  was  a  trustworthy  book,  humanly  .speaking. 
One  comes  from  the  other. 

The  argument  may  be  put,  in  brief,  as 
follows :  If  the  Bible  is  a  trustworthy  book,  it 
is  more  than  that ;  it  is  inspired.  For  the 
Church  is  infallible,  if  the  Bible  is  trustworthy  ; 
and  the  Church  tells  us  that  the  Bible  is  in- 
spired. The  reasoning  is  very  similar  to  that 
by  which  we  very  properly  prove  Christ's 
Divinity.  Christ,  we  say,  w^as  a  wise  and  good 
man,  and  therefore  would  not  claim  to  be  God 
if  He  were  not ;  but  he  did  claim  to  be  God  ; 
therefore  He  really  is  so.  This  must  be 
admitted  by  every  one  who  believes  He  did  say 
various  things  which  the  Gospels  recorded  of 
Him.     If  He  said  them,  He  either  was  God,  or 


58  The  Catholic  Idea  of  the  Bible, 

He  was,  as  the  Jews  maintained,  a  blasphemer, 
either  wicked  or  insane. 

But  after  all,  it  may  be  urged  that  our  con- 
viction of  the  Divine  authority  of  the  Bible  will 
never  at  best  rise  to  a  higher  certainty  than  the 
merely  human  one  with  which  it  began. 

In  answer  to  this,  it  may  be  said,  in  the  first 
place,  that  we  do  not  depend  on  the  Bible  alone 
to  prove  the  infallibility  of  the  Church ;  nu- 
merous other  arguments  can  be  given  ;  as,  for 
example,  that  already  spoken  of,  the  actual 
accordance  in  its  decisions  through  all  these 
centuries,  which  could  hardly  have  been  se- 
cured without  Divine  interposition. 

But  the  true  answer  is,  that  God,  by  a  direct 
action  of  grace  in  our  hearts,  builds  on  a  merely 
rational  foundation  a  secure  edifice  of  Divine 
faith.  We  believe  by  faith,  not  by  reason ;  but 
our  faith  is  rational,  as  reason  has  led  us  to  it. 

Faith  once  implanted  by  God  in  our  hearts, 
it  will  stand  secure  of  its  own  strength,  even  if 
the  rational  foundation  passes  from  our  minds  ; 
as  a  solid  stone  arch  stands  after  the  wooden 
frame  is  removed  round  which  it  was  built. 

But  though  faith  itself  is  thus  secure  in  its 
own  strength,  and  may  even  be  immediately  im- 
planted by  God  in  an  individual  soul  without 
argument,  it  is  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  a 
faith  independent  of  reason  and  argument  can 
be  intended  by  Him  for  adoption  by  the  world. 


The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith,     59 

This  is  just  the  point  where  the  Catholic 
belief  in  the  Bible  has  the  advantage  of  the 
Protestant  one.  The  one  is  rational  and  log- 
ical ;  the  other  irrational  and  blind.  The 
former  is  founded  on  good  reasons  ;  the  latter 
on  what  is,  comparatively,  guesswork. 

However,  it  is  not  so  much  the  object  of  this 
chapter,  or  of  this  work  in  general,  to  defend 
the  faith  of  Catholics,  as  to  show  just  what  that 
faith  is. 


CHAPTER  VI. 

THE   PRINCIPAIv    POINTS   OF    CATHOI^IC    FAITH. 

CjO  far  my  chief  endeavor  has  been  to  show 
)3  what  the  basis  of  the  Catholic  faith  is,  or 
what  are  the  sources  from  which  we  derive  it. 
I  trust  that  it  is  perfectly  clear  to  all  that  we  do 
not  believe  that  new  additions  are  being  made 
to  it  as  time  goes  on  ;  that  we  do  not  hold  that 
the  Pope  or  any  other  authority  in  the  Church 
receives  from  time  to  time  new  revelations,  and 
proposes  them  to  the  faithful  to  be  received 
implicitly  by  them  ;  but  that  we  believe  the 
faith  or  doctrine  of  the  Church  to  have  been 
fully  in  the  possession  of  the  Apostles,  and  that 
if  anything  is  promulgated  or  definitely  decreed 
by  the  Church  as  being  part  of  the  faith,  the 


6o     The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith, 

meaning  is  that  this  was  a  thing  which  the 
Apostles   themselves   believed   and  preached. 

The  Church,  then,  and  the  Holy  Scripture 
are  simply  our  means  for  finding  out  what  the 
doctrine  of  the  Apostles  was.  And  it  must  not 
be  imagined  that  we  trust  more  to  the  Church 
than  to  the  Bible.  In  point  of  fact  the  Bible  is 
for  us,  as  well  as  for  Protestants,  the  higher 
authority  of  the  two  ;  for  its  teaching  is  in- 
spired by  the  Holy  Ghost,  whereas  that  of  the 
Pope  or  of  the  Church  is  merely  preserved  from 
error  by  Him.  But  in  order  to  reverence  the 
Holy  Scripture  and  to  learn  our  faith  from  it,  it 
is  necessary  in  the  first  place  to  know  what  is 
Holy  Scripture  for  certain,  and  what  cannot  be 
depended  on  as  such  ;  and  it  is  also  necessary 
to  have  a  guide  to  help  us  to  understand  its 
sense,  which  is  obscure  in  many  places,  as  is 
evident  by  the  different  interpretations  which 
good  and  learned  men  have  put  on  it.  But 
where  its  sense  is  plain,  the  Church  does  not 
presume  to  overrule  or  ignore  it ;  and  the 
Church  is  not  afraid  of  any  part  of  the  Bible  as 
being  irreconcilable  with  her  doctrine. 

To  these  two  great  .sources  of  Christian  truth 
another  may  be  added  with  evident  propriety. 
This  is  what  we  call  tradition.  By  this  we 
mean  the  account  of  the  faith  which  is  handed 
down  by  word  of  mouth,  or  by  writing,  from 
one    generation    to     another.     Any    ordinarily 


TJie  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith.     6 1 

well-instructed  Catholic  can,  for  example,  give 
an  account  of  his  faith  in  its  principal  points  ; 
he  can  teach  it  orally  to  his  children,  or  write  it 
down  for  those  generally  who  are  to  come  after 
him.  Still  better  can  this  be  done  by  the 
learned  who  have  made  the  faith  their  .special 
study. 

Now,  one  such  statement  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Church  in  general,  or  of  any  special  point 
or  points  of  it,  does  not  of  itself  amount  to  so 
very  much,  as  the  source  from  which  it  pro- 
ceeds is  not  infallible  ;  but  if  any  point  is  found 
on  which  the  great  majority  of  these  statements 
agree,  the  evidence  in  favor  of  this  point  be- 
comes very  strong.  It  does  not  give  the  same 
certainty  which  conies  from  the  plain  words  of 
Scripture,  or  from  a  definite  decree  of  the 
Church  itself ;  but  it  gives  something  ver}^  near 
it.  And  the  Bible  itself  gives  testimony  to  the 
utility  of  this  means  in  preserving  the  faith 
entire  and  unchanged.  *' Brethren,"  says  St- 
Paul,  writing  to  the  Thessalonians  (II.  Thess. 
ii.  14),  "hold  the  traditions  which  you  have 
learned,  whether  by  word,  or  our  epistle." 
And  to  Timothy  he  writes  (II.  Tim.  ii.  2),  ''the 
things  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  by  many 
witnesses,  the  same  commend  to  faithful  men, 
who  shall  be  fit  to  teach  others  also." 

But  really  we  hardly  need  this  guarantee  of 
the  usefulness  of  this  method  of  preserving  any 


62     The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith. 


kind  of  valuable  information.  It  is  practised 
constantly  in  all  the  arts  and  trades  of  men,  and 
even  in  the  sciences;  and  in  religion  it  is, 
indeed,  used  by  Protestants  themselves. 

Let  us  now  come  to  the  consideration  of  the 
actual  doctrine  of  the  Church,  as  derived  by  us 
from  these  three  sources.  But  let  it  not  be 
understood  that  we  mean  that  all  its  points, 
though  held,  as  we  believe,  by  the  Apostles, 
were  taught  by  them  with  equal  prominence. 
Some  are  more  important  than  others  in  them- 
selves ;  and  some — as,  for  instance,  that  of  the 
Resurrection  of  our  lyord — were  more  necessary 
to  be  insisted  on  at  the  times  in  which  they 
lived  and  had  to  work.  With  regard  to  others, 
also,  as  is  simple  matter  of  history,  we  know 
that  instruction  was  in  the  early  ages  given 
secretly — that  is,  only  to  those  who  had  been 
baptized  ;  in  order  that  doctrines  which  were 
difficult  or  mysterious  might  not  be  exposed 
to  public  ridicule  or  misinterpretation.  This 
"discipline  of  the  secret,"  as  it  was  called, 
applied  specially  to  the  dogma  of  the  Real 
Presence  of  Christ  in  the  consecrated  elements. 

Again,  other  matters  of  faith,  though  very 
fundamental  and  important,  were  not  so  much 
insisted  on  in  various  ages  of  the  Church  as  in 
others,  because  they  were  not  then  denied  or 
called  in  question.  Indeed  the  definitions  of 
the    Church,  the   bringings   of  its  faith  to   the 


The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith,     63 

surface  as  it  were,  have  generally  been  oc- 
casioned by  the  spread  of  opinions  contrary  to 
that  faith.  Thus,  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Trinity  itself  was  not  clearl}^  defined  for  about 
three  hundred  years  after  Christ,  when  the 
definition  was  required  by  the  emergencies  of 
the  time ;  and  so  one  point  of  faith  after  another 
has  been  specially  emphasized  by  definitions  as 
the  times  may  seem  to  demand. 

The  creed  or  collection  of  dogmas,  then, 
which  I  am  about  to  present,  need  not  all 
have  been  taught  with  equal  prominence  or 
emphasis  by  the  Apostles ;  there  may,  indeed, 
have  been  other  matters  to  which  they  devoted 
more  attention  than  to  some  of  these.  But 
these  are  the  ones  most  important  to  be  under- 
stood and  formally  or  explicitly  accepted  at 
present ;  they  constitute  the  profession  or 
declaration  of  faith  made  by  converts  to  the 
Church  when  they  are  received  into  it ;  and 
naturally  the  ones  to  which  the  greatest  interest 
attaches. 

This  profession  or  declaration  of  faith  is, 
then,  as  follows  : 

"/ (the  name  is  here  given),  having  before  rny  eyes 
the  holy  Gospels,  which  I  touch  with  'yny  hand,  and 
knowing  that  no  one  can  be  saved  without  that  faith 
which  the  Holy  Catholic  Apostolic  Roman  Church  holds, 
believes,  and  teaches,  against  which  I  grieve  that  I 
have  greatly  erred,  ifiasmuch  as  I  have  held  and  believ- 
ed doctrines  opposed  to  her  teaching : 


64     The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  taith, 

' '  /  7WW,  with  grief  and  contrition  for  my  past  errors, 
profess  that  I  believe  the  Holy  Catholic  Apostolic 
Roman  Church  to  be  the  only  and  true  CJiurch  estab- 
lished on  earth  by  fesus  CJirist,  to  which  I  submit  my- 
self with  my  whole  heart.  I  believe  all  tJie  articles 
that  she  proposes  to  7ny  belief,  and  I  reject  and  con- 
demn all  that  sJie  rejects  and  condemns,  and  I  am 
ready  to  observe  all  that  she  commands  me.  And 
especially,  I  profess  that  I  believe  : 

' '  One  only  God  in  three  divine  Persons,  distinct 
from,  and  equal  to  each  other — that  is  to  say,  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost ; 

"  The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation,  Passion, 
Death,  and  Resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ ;  and 
the  personal  union  of  the  two  Natttres,  the  divine  and 
tJie  human ;  tlie  divine  Materriity  of  the  most  Jioly 
Mary,  together  with  tier  most  spotless   Virginity  ; 

' '  The  true,  real,  and  substantial  presence  of  the  Body 
and  Blood,  togetJier  witJi  the  Soul  and  Divinity  of  our 
Lord  fesus  Christ,  in  the  most  Jioly  Sacrament  of  the 
Eucharist ; 

*'  The  seven  Sacraments  instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  for 
the  salvation  of  mankind ;  ttiat  is  to  say.  Baptism, 
Confirmatio7i,  Eucliarist,  Penance,  Extreme  Unction, 
Order,  Matrirnony  ; 

' '  Purgatory,  tlie  Resurrection  of  ttie  dead.  Everlast- 
ing life  ; 

"  The  Piimacy,  not  only  of  Jionor,  but  also  of  juris- 
diction, of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  successor  of  St.  Peter, 
Prince  of  the  Apostles,    Vicar  of  Jesus  Ctirist ; 

"  The  veneratio7i  of  tJie  Saints,  and  of  their  images  ; 

"  The  authority  of  the  Apostolic  and  Ecclesiastical 
Traditions,  and  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which  we  m^ust 
interpret  and  understand  only  in  the  sense  ivhich  our 
holy  mother  the  Catholic  CJiurch  has  held,  and  does 
hold  ; 


The  Principal  Points  of  CatJwlic  Faith,     65 

^^  And  everything  else  that  has  been  defined,  and 
declared  by  the  sacred  Canons,  and  by  the  general 
Councils,  and  particularly  by  the  holy  Council  of  Trent, 
and  delivered,  defined,  and  declared  by  the  General 
Council  of  the  Vatican,  especially  concerning  the  Pri- 
macy of  the  Roman  Pontiff,  and  his  infallible  teaching 
authority. 

"  With  a  sincere  heart,  therefore,  and  with  unfeigned 
faithy  I  detest  and  abjure  every  error,  heresy,  and  sect 
opposed  to  the  said  Holy  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Roman  Church.  So  help  me  God,  and  these  His  holy 
Gospels,  which  I  touch  with  my  hand.'' 

The  preamble,  in  which  it  is  stated  that  no 
one  can  be  saved  without  the  Catholic  faith,  and 
that  the  convert  is  ready  to  do  what  the  Church 
commands,  I  shall  discuss  later  on,  when  it  will 
be  better  understood.  At  present  we  will  con- 
fine ourselves  to  the  definite  articles  proposed. 

In  them  you  have  the  Catholic  creed  in  all 
its  principal  points.  There  are  some  others 
naturally  following  from  or  connected  with 
these  ;  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  none  will  give 
you  difficulty  if  these  do  not.  I  shall,  however, 
touch  on  some  matters  not  directly  mentioned 
here  ;  for  it  is  not  the  desire  of  the  Church  to 
keep  anything  back  ;  the  ' '  discipline  of  the 
secret,"  mentioned  above,  though  no  doubt 
necessary  in  its  day,  is  not  observed  at  present. 

But  no  doubt  some  of  the  points  given  here 
may  present  some  difficulty,  and  some  you  may 
misunderstand    as   you    read   them,    either   on 


66     The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith. 

ac^count  of  the  brevity  with  which  they  are  ex- 
pressed, or  because  of  the  false  notions  about 
them  which  you  may  have  entertained.  Let  us 
then  look  at  them  more  carefully  and  see  how 
much  difficulty,  if  any,  remains  after  our  ex- 
amination. 

It  is  likely  that  some  will ;  especially  as  we 
shall  not  in  these  pages  discuss  matters  very 
minutely,  and  you  will  not  have  a  chance  to  ask 
questions  or  propose  doubts.  I  only  want  now 
to  show  you,  if  possible,  that  the  Catholic  faith 
is  not  such  a  monstrous  or  unreasonable  thing 
as  you  may  have  imagined  ;  the  only  wa}^  to 
settle  every  question  that  may  occur  is  to  go  to 
some  priest,  or  if  you  cannot  make  up  your 
mind  to  that,  to  consult  some  well-instructed 
Catholic ;  but  of  course  the  priest  is  the  best 
one  to  talk  to,  for  he  has  made  these  matters  his 
special  study  ;  and  he  will  probably  be  able  to 
appoint  some  time  to  talk  to  you,  if  too  busy 
just  when  you  happen  to  call  on  him.  You 
will  probably  find  him  to  have  more  in  common 
with  yourself  than  you  suppose,  even  though  he 
may  be  a  foreigner  by  birth  ;  and  he  will  very 
likely  be  an  American  citizen  b}^  birth,  not 
merely  by  adoption  ;  and  it  is  not  so  difficult  to 
find  a  priest  who  has  been  a  Protestant,  and 
who  will  understand,  by  his  own  experience, 
just  what  your  ideas  and  your  difficulties  are. 

Now  let  us  look  at  the  articles  of  faith  given 


The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith,     6/ 


above.  The  first  is:  ''One  only  God  in  three 
divine  Persons^  distinct  from^  and  equal  to  each 
other — that  is  to  say,  the  Father,  the  Son,  a7id  the 
Holy  Ghost:' 

No  doubt  this  is  a  doctrine  which  in  itself 
presents  difficulty  ;  it  is  a  great  mystery,  one 
peculiar  to  the  Christian  faith,  and  one  which 
we  cannot  hope  to  understand  thoroughly,  still 
less  to  convince  ourselves  of  by  reasoning.  But 
then  the  difficulty  which  it  presents  is  one  to 
which  probably  you  have  been  accustomed  ;  for 
almost  all  Christian  denominations  hold  and 
teach  this  same  doctrine.  Protestantism  made 
no  protest  on  this  point ;  the  Greek  Church  of 
course  teaches  it,  and  so  do  all  the  churches  of 
the  East.  So*  we  need  not  consider  it  as  an 
objection  to  the  Catholic  Church  in  particular ; 
it  would  rather  be  so  if  she  did  not  teach  it; 
and  we  may,  in  spite  of  the  great  importance  of 
this  doctrine,  pass  on  to  something  else. 

Next  we  have  ' '  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
hicar7iatio7i.  Passion,  Death ^  and  Resurrection  of 
our  Lord  fesus  Christ. ' ' 

Here  again  we  have  something  substantially 
the  same  as  what  the  great  majority  of  Protest- 
ants maintain.  I  will  state — though  very  pro- 
bably you  know  already — what  hicarnation 
means.  It  means  simply  that  the  Son  of  God, 
the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity, 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  took  our  human 


68      The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  FaitJi. 

nature,  and  became  man  as  well  as  God,  in  the 
person  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Almost  all 
Protestants,  as  I  have  said,  also  believe  this  ; 
but  they  are  not  always  very  clear  about  just 
the  time  and  the  way  in  which  this  wonder- 
ful work  was  accomplished.  Some,  I  think, 
believe  that  the  man  Christ  became  divine  only 
when  the  Holy  Ghost  descended  on  him  at  the 
time  of  his  baptism.  Some,  perhaps,  regard 
him  to  have  been  so  at  his  birth,  but  not  before. 
But  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  most  Protest- 
ants recite  or  at  least  believe,  is  quite  clear  on 
this  point.  It  says,  "  He  was  conceived  by  the 
Holy  Ghost."  What  does  this  mean,  except 
that  His  conception  in  the  womb  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  Mary,  His  mother,  was  the  occasion  on 
which  this  wonderful  "  Incarnation  "  occurred  ? 
And  the  Bible  seems  really  quite  plain  in  its 
teaching  about  this  matter. 

However,  as  you  see,  there  is  no  charge  or 
protest  against  the  Catholic  Church  about  its 
teaching  in  this  respect  made  by  Protestants. 
The  mass  of  them  believe  just  as  we  do,  that 
the  Son  of  God  became  ''incarnate" — that  is, 
took  human  nature  upon  Himself  in  the  womb 
of  His  Blessed  Mother,  at  the  time  when  the 
Angel  Gabriel  appeared  to  her,  as  narrated  in 
the  first  chapter  of  St.  lyuke's  Gospel. 

Now  next  as  to  the  Passzo?i  of  Christ.  Of 
course   this   simply   means   His   sufferings   im- 


The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith.     69 

mediately  previoUvS  to  and  in  connection  with 
His  death ;  specially  His  crucifixion.  But 
what  is  the  meaning  of  saying  that  we  hold  this 
as  a  doctrifie  ?  For  it  is  simply  a  well-estab- 
lished fact  of  history,  is  it  not  ?  Very  few, 
certainly,  doubt  it.  Both  Jews  and  pagans 
bore,  and  still  bear,  testimony  to  it. 

The  doctrine,  then,  of  Christ's  Passion  and 
Death  must  be  something  different  from  the 
mere  ajssertion  of  the  fact  that  He  suffered  and 
died.  And  it  is.  The  Catholic  doctrine  about 
it  is  not  merely  that  Christ  suffered  and  died, 
but  that  He  suffered  and  died /<?r  ns ;  that  by 
His  suffering  and  death  He  accomplished  a 
most  wonderful  work,  making  by  means  of  it 
satisfaction  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world  ;  and 
not  only  making  a  satisfaction,  but  making  the 
only  satisfaction  which  ever  has  been,  or  ever 
will  be,  made  for  our  sins ;  so  that  it  is  in  that 
suffering  and  death  of  His  that  all  our  hope 
must  be  placed.  The  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
Passion  and  Death  of  Christ  is  that  Christ  is  our 
onl}^  Saviour  and  Redeemer ;  that,  as  St.  Peter 
says  (Acts  iv.  12),  "there  is  no  other  name 
under  heaven  given  to  men  whereby  we  must  be 
saved." 

Well,  here  again,  what  charge  would  Protest- 
ants in  general  want  to  make  against  the 
Catholic  Church  ?  P^very  Christian  who  be- 
Lieves  that  we  need  to  be  saved  at  all,  believes 


70     The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith, 

that  we  must  be  saved  by  Christ's  sufferings 
and  death. 

You  have  been  perhaps  accustomed  to  be- 
lieve, you  have  been  told,  it  may  be,  from 
your  childhood,  that  we  Catholics,  or  *' Roman- 
ists ' '  as  they  sometimes  call  us,  believe  that  it 
is  our  own  good  works  that  win  heaven  for  us; 
that  we  put  the  merits  of  Christ  quite  into  the 
background.  But  you  see  this  is  a  great 
mistake.  Christ  is  our  Saviour,  and  there  is  no 
other  which  can  take  His  place ;  this  is  nothing 
new  which  Martin  Luther  or  any  other  Protest- 
ant brought  to  light ;  it  has  been  the  Catholic 
teaching  from  the  beginning. 

Next  we  have  mention  of  the  Resurrection  of 
Christ.  We  perhaps  need  not  say  much  about 
this,  for  though  it  is  a  miraculous  event,  in 
which  we  believe  by  faith,  and  not  a  simple 
matter  of  ordinary  history,  still  the  whole 
Christian  world  accepts  it  as  a  certainty.  No 
Christian  believes  that  Christ's  body  decayed 
like  others  in  the  tomb  to  which  it  was  con- 
signed, or  even  that  it  was  stolen  away  to  follow 
the  laws  of  nature  in  any  other  place,  or  to  be 
otherwise  disposed  of  by  His  disciples.  The 
practically  universal  belief  of  all  who  call  them- 
selves Christians  is  that,  as  recorded  in  all  the 
gospels,  Christ  arose  from  the  tomb  in  which 
His  really  dead  body  lay,  on  the  Sunday  morn- 
ing   following    His    crucifixion ;    and    that   he 


The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith.     71 

arose  to  die  no  more,  but  to  live  in  the  flesh  a 
glorious  and  immortal  life. 

They  believe  also  that  His  risen  body  was 
not,  as  before,  subject  to  pain,  fatigue,  or  any 
of  the  ills  of  this  life,  and  that  it  had  qualities 
of  a  supernatural  character,  evident  from  the 
gospel  narratives,  which  will  be  more  fully  ex- 
plained when  w^e  come  to  speak  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead.  Here,  then,  the  Catholic 
Church  has  no  issue  or  trouble  with  any  other 
Christian  denominations,  except  with  such  who, 
while  calling  themselves  Christians,  reject  the 
supernatural  altogether  from  the  life  of  Christ. 
We  may,  therefore,  pass  on,  since,  as  has  been 
said  from  the  outset,  w^e  are  not  undertaking  a 
formal  defence  of  the  Christian  faith  against 
other  quite  diferent  religions,  nor  against  in- 
fidelity and  rationalism. 

What  have  we  next  ?  ' '  The  perso7ial  union 
of  the  two  Natures^  the  divine  and  the  human. ^^ 

This  concerns  a  point  of  what  may  be  called 
accurate  theology,  about  which  in  these  days 
people  do  not  generall}^  trouble  themselves 
much.  And  it  is  not  a  point  of  real  controversy 
at  present  among  those  who  believe  in  the 
Divinity  of  Christ,  though  man}^  have  no  doubt 
quite  loose  and  unsettled  notions  on  the  subject. 

In  the  early  days  of  the  Church,  however, 
there  was  a  good  deal  of  dispute  about  this 
matter. 


72     The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith. 


Some  held  that  there  was  a  double  personal- 
ity in  Christ ;  two  really  distinct  persons,  one 
Divine,  the  other  human,  under  the  same  bodily 
form. 

These  were  called  Nestorians,  from  their 
leader,  Nestorius,  Archbishop  of  Constanti- 
nople. Their  doctrine  was  condemned  as  false 
and  heretical  at  the  General  Council  of 
Ei)hesus,  A.D.  431,  and  it  disappeared  for  the 
most  part  from  the  Church,  though  there  are 
some  who  profess  it  even  to  this  day  among  the 
Christians  of  the  far  East.  You  may  have  seen 
the  name  in  the  papers ;  their  reunion  with  the 
Catholic  Church  was  spoken  of  some  time  ago. 

This  doctrine  having  been  condemned,  some 
went  too  far  in  the  other  direction,  and  main- 
tained that  there  was  no  human  nature  in 
Christ ;  that  there  was  only  07ie  nature,  as  there 
was  only  one  person.  These  were  called  Eu- 
tychians,  from  their  leader  Eutyches,  a  monk  of 
Constantinople ;  or  more  significantly  Monophy- 
sites,  a  Greek  word  signifying  one  nature  {mojios, 
one  or  single,  ^wd^physis,  nature).  This  belief 
was  also  declared  to  be  contrary  to  the  true 
faith  in  the  General  Council  of  Chalcedon,  a.d. 
45 1 ,  and  it  never  prevailed  to  any  great  extent 
subsequently ;  but  as  there  are  still  some 
Nestorians,  so  also  there  are  still  some  Mo- 
nophysites.     The  Copts  of  Egypt  are  such. 

But   neither  of    these    doctrines   is  formally 


The  Principal  Points  of  Catholic  Faith.     73 

maintained  by  Christians,  whether  Catholic  or 
Protestant,  in  Europe  or  America.  All  among 
us  who  believe  in  Christ's  Godhead  or  Divinit3% 
whether  they  be  Catholic  or  Protestant,  believe 
that  Christ  was  both  God  and  man,  in  one 
single  personality. 

And  indeed  it  is  clear  that,  were  it  otherwise, 
His  sufferings  and  death  would  not  avail  for  our 
redemption,  in  the  view  of  those  who  believe 
that  redemption  or  atonement  for  our  sins  was 
needed.  A  merely  human  person  could  not 
suffice  to  make  this  atonement ;  on  the  other 
hand,  a  human  nature  was  needed  in  order  that 
suffering  and  death  might  be  possible.. 

I  think,  then,  that  there  are  few  so-called 
orthodox  Protestants  who  will  have  any  fault  to 
find  with  the  Catholic  Church  here ;  though 
such  Protestants  do  not  all  see  the  consequences 
which  naturally  follow  from  this  doctrine,  as 
will  be  evident  a  little  farther  on. 

The  next  article  is  :  '  *  the  divine  Maternity 
of  the  most  holy  Mary,  together  with  her  most 
spotless  Virgi7iity:'  Here  we  come  to  what 
seems  to  be  a  point  at  issue  ;  and  we  will  give 
to  it,  and  to  the  general  teaching  of  the  Church 
about  the  Blessed  Virgin,  a  separate  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VII. 

THK    BIvESSKD   VIRGIN    MARY. 

AlrHAT,  then,  is  meant  by  these  words — 
^^  ''the  divine  MaUrnity  of  the  most  holy 
Mary  "  f 

It  is  meant  that  she  is  truly  and  properly 
called,  as  the  Catholic  Church  calls  her,  the 
Mother  of  God.  This  title  was  definitely  given 
to  her  by  the  Council  of  Ephesus,  of  which  I 
have  just  spoken,  and  is  given  to  her  by  all 
Catholics  in  the  prayer  which  we  call  the 
''  Hail  Mary."  We  vSay  in  that  prayer  :  ''  Hail 
Mary,  Mother  of  God,  pray  for  us  sinners  now 
and  at  the  hour  of  our  death." 

It  is  quite  likely  that  you  may  object  to  this 
title,  and  be  scandalized  by  it.  But  that  is  be- 
cause you  do  not  rightly  understand  what  it 
means. 

I  remember  seeing  mention  of  it  made  in  a 
Protestant  catechism  which  I  was  once  teaching 
in  a  Sunday-school.  It  spoke  of  this  title  as 
being  a  wrong  one  given  by  Romanists,  and  re- 
marked that  the  Virgin  Mary  was  "Christ's 
mother  only  as  to  His  human  nature." 

This,  of  course,  implied  that  **  Romanists,"  or 
Catholics,   regarded   her  as  the    mother  of  the 


The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary.  75 

Divine  Nature.  And  this  idea.  I  feel  sure,  is 
quite  prevalent  among  Protestants  about  us. 

And  yet  the  notion  is  so  absurd  a  one  that  it 
hardly  seems  to  bear  discussion.  How  could 
there  be  a  Mother  of  the  Divine  Nature  ?  Such 
an  idea  would  at  once  make  that  Nature  not 
Divine.  For  the  Nature  of  God  is  necessarily 
self-existing,  and  from  all  eternity.  It  could 
not  be  Divine,  and  yet  have  a  Mother.  It 
would  follow  from  this  that  we  Catholics  do  not 
mean  God  when  we  use  the  word,  and  that  the 
Blessed  Virgin  is  our  real  God,  if  w^e  have  any 
at  all,  strictly  speaking. 

And  such,  I  am  afraid,  is  the  idea  that  many 
Protestants  have  of  us.  If  they  would  only 
examine,  they  would  see  how  false  it  is ;  they 
would  see  that  what  we  teach  must  be  taught 
unless  we  wish  to  be  Nestorians. 

They  would  see  that  no  woman  could  be  a 
mother  of  a  nature  simply.  Any  mother  is  the 
mother  oi  3.  person,  not  merely  of  a  nahtre.  The 
person  has  a  nature  of  course,  but  it  is  not  mere- 
ly the  nature  which  is  born  of  the  mother,  but 
the  person. 

Very  well  then.  The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary 
was  the  Mother  of  Christ ;  that  is  granted  by 
all.  But  Christ  was  a  single  person,  having  a 
Divine  as  well  as  a  human  nature ;  this  is  ad- 
mitted by  orthodox  Protestants.  And  this  per- 
son   Christ   is   properly  called  Divine ;    that  is 


76  7 he  Blessed  Virgin  Mary. 


also  plain  enough ;  He  is  called  simply  God 
by  Protestants  themselves ;  His  personality  is 
Divine.  The  Blessed  Virgin  was  the  one  who 
brought  God  into  the  world  ;  and  that  is  all  that 
we  mean  by  calling  her  the  mother  of  God.  The 
title  was  given,  and  is  used,  as  a  protest  against 
the  Nestorian  heresy  that  there  were  two  per- 
sons, one  Divine  and  one  human,  and  that  only 
the  human  person  was  born  into  the  world. 
Protestants  need  not  worry  themselves  about  it 
at  all,  for  they  hold  just  the  same  thing  them- 
selves. 

It  is,  then,  only  in  appearance  that  there  is  a 
point  at  issue  here.  But  no  doubt  there  is  a 
real  disagreement  on  some  points  about  the 
Blessed  Mother  of  God  between  Protestants  and 
Catholics. 

For  one  thing,  Protestants  do  not  seem  to  like 
to  call  her  ''  blessed,"  as  Catholics  regularly  do. 
This  is  really  strange  on  their  part,  for  we  find 
right  down  in  their  own  Bible  (Luke  i.  48) 
"from  henceforth  all  generations  .shall  call  me 
blessed."  It  is  the  same  in  ours  too  ;  and  now 
I  will  just  remark  that  in  the  quotations  I  have 
made  thus  far  from  the. Bible  I  have  used  the 
Catholic  version,  and  shall  continue  to  do  vSO,  as 
a  rule,  and  this  for  several  reasons;  first,  because 
we  believe  it  to  be  the  best;  secondly,  that  you 
may  be  quite  sure  that  we  have  one  in  English  ; 
and  thirdly,  that  you  may  see  how  little  differ- 


TJte  Blessed  Virgin  Mary.  yy 


ence,  on  the  whole,  there  is  between  it  and  the 
Protestant  one. 

What  reason  have  Protestants  for  objecting  to 
do  what  the  Bible  sa3^s  all  generations  will  do  ? 
It  is  really  hard  to  see  ;  for  even  if  the  Mother 
of  Christ  was  merely  an  ordinary  woman  like 
any  other,  certainly  she  was  ver}^  fortunate  and 
blessed  in  having  for  her  Son  the  Redeemer  of 
the  world. 

I  can  see  no  reavSon,  unless  that  they  want  to 
keep  her  down,  as  it  were  ;  it  looks  as  if  they 
thought  there  was  some  danger  of  her  being 
more  highly  honored  than  her  Son,  and  that 
some  sort  of  repression  was  called  for.  To 
Catholics  this  idea  would  never  occur ;  we 
would  not  think  of  comparing  the  Blessed 
Virgin  with  God  ;  highly  exalted  as  we  believe 
her  to  be  among  creatures,  the  same  infinite 
gap  always  remains  in  our  minds  between  her 
and  God  that  must  necessarily  be  between  the 
creature  and  the  Creator. 

Really  this  fear,  this  nervousness  as  it  were, 
about  a  rivalry  between  the  two,  seems  very 
amusing  to  us  sometimes.  I  once  knew  a 
Protestant  woman  who  on  seeing  a  statue  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  holding  her  Divine  Infant  in  her 
arms,  as  she  must  so  frequently  have  done,  said 
that  it  ' '  gave  her  a  shiver  to  see  the  Virgin  so 
large,  and  the  Saviour  so  small"!  Such  a 
strange  conceit  could  not  occur  to  a  Catholic. 


78  The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary. 

Such  representations  only  impress  on  us,  as  it 
seems  that  they  naturally  must  upon  all  Chris- 
tians, the  immense  condescension  of  God  in 
becoming  a  little  child  for  our  sake,  and  the 
great  dignity  He  was  pleased  to  confer  on  His 
Mother,  and  similarly  on  His  foster-father  St. 
Joseph,  in  being,  as  the  Scripture  says,  "  sub- 
ject to  them  "  (lyuke  ii.  51). 

But  of  course  there  is  some  difference  be- 
tween the  Catholic  and  Protestant  teachings 
with  regard  to  the  Blessed  Virgin,  as  I  have 
said.  Protestants,  as  a  ru'le,  I  think,  do  regard 
her  as  simply  in  herself  nothing  but  an  ordinary 
woman;  a  good,  pious,  and  holy  woman,  cer- 
tainly ;  I  hardly  think  they  doubt  that ;  but 
still  not  in  any  way  specially  or  distinctly  su- 
perior to  many  others.  I  suppose  the}'-  would 
all  agree  that  she  is  in  heaven  ;  but  they  do  not 
look  upon  her  as  occupying  any  special  or 
exalted  place  there. 

The  reason,  probably,  for  this  really  peculiar 
opinion  of  theirs — for  it  is  peculiar,  the  Greek 
and  all  the  Oriental  churches  having  the 
Catholic  view  about  her — is  that  they  do  not 
attach  any  weight  to  anything  that  is  not  right 
down  in  the  text  of  the  Bible.  Sometimes,  as 
in  the  instance  I  gave  a  little  while  ago,  it 
really  seems  as  if  they  did  not  notice  very  much 
some  things  that  are  in  that  text ;  but  at  any 
rate,  they  do  not  go  beyond  it.     This  is  in  it- 


TJie  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  79 

self  unreasonable ;  it  is  something  the  same  as 
if  we  admitted  no  evidence  about  the  great  men 
who  founded  our  government  except  what  could 
be  obtained  from  the  study  of  the  Constitution. 
But  this  point  has  already  been  sufficiently  dis- 
cussed ;  and  I  trust  you  have  seen  that  the 
Catholic  belief  that  other  evidence  on  doctrinal 
points  is  admissible  is  reasonable  enough,  to 
say  the  least. 

Admitting  such  evidence,  it  is  plain  enough 
that  the  Blessed  Virgin  did  occupy  in  the  mind 
of  the  Church  a  peculiar  and  separate  position 
from  that  of  other  saints  and  holy  persons,  from 
the  first  ages  of  Christianity.  We  find  as 
strong  things  said  about  her  when  the  Church 
came  out  of  the  pressure  of  persecution,  and 
had  a  chance  to  fully  publish  her  doctrine,  as 
now.  We  find  it  constantly  maintained  that 
she  was  not  only  good,  but  even  sinless ;  and 
surely,  though  Protestants  may  not  see  how  this 
can  be  established,  at  leavSt  none  urge  anything 
against  it,  or  bring  in  any  way  against  her  any 
definite  charge  or  blame  of  any  kind ;  and 
many  of  them  even  admit  it,  though  not  as  ^a 
matter  of  absolute  belief  or  certainty. 

Then,  again,  there  is  a  constant  tradition  that 
she  was  after  her  death  taken  bodily  away 
from  this  world  ;  that  as  our  Divine  Lord  as- 
cended corporally  into  heaven,  so  His  Blessed 
Mother  was  taken  up,  or  assumed  there.     This 


8o  TJie  Blessed  Virgin  Mary, 

event  is  celebrated  in  the  feast  of  the  Assump- 
tion, as  we  call  it.  And  I  would  like  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  probability  of  this,  from 
the  fact  that  no  one  ever  pretended  to  collect 
any  relics  of  the  Blessed  Virgin,  except  of  such 
a  nature  that  she  might  have  parted  with  them 
during  life,  and  that  no  one  has  claimed  or  now 
claims  that  her  body  actually  rests  anywhere  on 
earth.  Such  claims  would  undoubtedly  have 
been  made,  had  it  been  possible  to  make  them  ; 
for  no  one  can  suppose  that  the  actual  tomb  of 
the  body  of  one  so  intimately  related  to  Christ 
would  have  been  neglected  by  Christians,  or 
that  they  would  not  have  collected  what  sou- 
venirs were  attainable  of  one  who  must  have 
been  so  dear  to  Him  and  to  them. 

To  say  that  her  remains  were  hid  away,  as 
the  Jews  pretended  that  those  of  Christ  were, 
would  merely  be  saying  that  Romanism  began 
very  early,  and  was  indeed  identified  with 
Christianity  itself.  But  such  an  idea,  either 
with  regard  to  our  Divine  Lord  or  to^  His 
Blessed  Mother,  is  really  unreasonable  ;  no  se- 
cret of  such  importance  could  be  so  well  kept. 

However,  it  is  not  necessary  to  argue  further 
to  prove  this  point,  or  even  to  show  that  it  is 
not  improbable  ;  for  it  has  never  been  defined 
as  an  article  of  Catholic  faith,  though  it  is  uni- 
versally believed  by  Catholics. 

The  other  matter  which  is  given  in  the  pro- 


The  Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  8 1 

fession  of  faith  which  we  are  examining  is  the 
spotless  or  absolute  Virginity  of  Miiry.  This  is 
generally  conceded  by  Christians,  as  all  call 
her  Virgin,  though  all  do  not  prefix  the  title 
Blessed.  The  only  questions  which  could  well 
be  raised  about  it  would  be  as  to  whether 
Christ  Himself  was  the  son  of  Joseph,  and 
whether  He  had  any  brothers  or  sisters,  in  the 
sense  in  which  we  would  use  the  word.  Both 
these  ideas  are  rejected  by  orthodox  Protest- 
ants, the  brothers  or  sisters  mentioned  in  the 
Gospel  being  understood  to  be  merely  near 
relatives.  The  Catholic  faith,  therefore,  pre- 
sents no  more  difficulties  in  this  matter  than 
that  of  Protestants  in  general. 

There  is  another  matter  of  faith,  however, 
with  regard  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  which 
should  be  explained,  as  it  has  been  much  mis- 
understood, and  is  of  considerable  importance. 
It  has  been  often  mentioned  in  these  last  few 
decades,  especially  since  its  solemn  definition  as 
an  article  of  faith  by  Pius  IX.  in  1854,  ^^^  yo^ 
have  probably  often  heard  of  it.  It  is  what  is 
known  as  the  Immaculate  Conception  ;  and  on 
account  of  the  special  interest  attaching  to  it, 
we  will  make  it  the  subject  of  a  special  chapter. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 

THK   IMMACUIyATK   CONCEPTION. 

THE  particular  dogma  of  the  Church  which 
we  are  about  to  consider  seems  to  furnish 
a  specially  good  illustration  of  a  fact  evident 
enough  to  Catholics ;  that  is,  that  most  of  the 
objections  made  by  Protestants  to  our  religion 
come  from  their  not  understanding  what  that 
religion  really  teaches.  It  is  quite  plain  that 
hardly  any  of  the  objectors  to  the  Immaculate 
Conception  have  any  idea  of  what  is  meant  by 
the  words. 

Some  seem  to  think  that  it  refers  to  the  su- 
pernatural conception  of  our  Divine  Lord  in  the 
womb  of  His  Blessed  Mother ;  and  it  seems 
certainly  strange  that  with  this  notion  they 
should  object  to  it,  for  this  doctrine  is  plainly 
laid  down  in  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  almo.st 
all  Christians  profess,  in  the  words,  ''  He  was 
conceived  by  the  Holy  Ghost."  It  is  also 
clearly  taught  in  the  Bible  itself  (lyuke  ii.  35). 

Others,  again,  see  in  it  a  sort  of  deification  of 
the  Blessed  Virgin  herself;  they  think  that  it 
means  to  say  that  she  is  in  some  way  equal  to 
God ;    though  why  they  should  entertain  this 

idea  seems  to  us  quite  strange.     It  is  only  to  be 

82 


The  Immaculate  Conception,  83 

accounted  for  by  their  having  that  notion  firmly 
fixed  in  their  minds  already,  so  that  anything 
which  appears  to  point  in  that  direction  tends  to 
increase  or  intensify  that  conviction. 

Others  still,  paying  somewhat  closer  attention 
to  the  words  as  they  stand,  gather  from  them 
the  meaning  that  the  Church  regards  the  con- 
ception of  Mary  as  supernatural  in  the  same 
sense  in  which  that  of  her  Divine  Son  was  ; 
that  we  believe  that  she  too  was  *'  conceived  by 
the  Holy  Ghost."  They  think,  then,  that  if  it 
does  not  mean  that  she  was  actually  divine,  it 
certainly  must  mean  that  she  is  in  some  way 
more  than  human ;  a  goddess  in  some  sense, 
though  not  perhaps  equal  to  God  Himself. 

How  strange  it  is  that  they  will  never  take 
the  trouble  to  inquire  of  some  one  who  really 
knows  what  this  doctrine  is,  or  to  get  some 
book  which  would  give  them  information.  If 
they  would  do  so,  they  would  find,  very  likely, 
that  their  objections  would  disappear ;  at  any 
rate,  it  would  seem  to  them  a  small  addition  to 
what  they  are  already  willing  enough  to  accept. 

What,  then,  is  this  doctrine?  In  the  first 
place,  it  is  not  any  raising  of  the  Mother  of  God 
above  the  plane  of  human  nature.  The  Church 
does  not  mean  by  the  words  * '  Immaculate  Con- 
ception ' '  that  Mary  was  conceived  by  the  Holy 
Ghost;  on  the  contrary,  she  teaches  that  she 
was  conceived  and  born  of  human  parents ;  her 


84  The  Immaculate  Conception. 


father's  name  is  believed  to  have  been  Joachim, 
her  mother's  Anna.  All  that  is  meant  is  that 
she  was  not  only  from  the  time  of  her  birth,  but 
from  the  moment  of  her  conception,  a  perfectly- 
innocent  or  sinless  child. 

That  is  no  more  than  what  many  Christians 
believe  is  the  case  with  every  child  that  comes 
into  this  world.  And  of  course  the  Church 
thinks  so  too,  if  by  sin  is  meant  actual  sin ;  that 
is  to  say,  sin  actually  committed  by  thought, 
word,  or  deed.  For  it  is  plain  that  no  child  can 
commit  sin  before  coming  to  an  age  when  it 
becomes  aware  of  the  difference  between  right 
and  wrong  ;  the  age  of  reason,  as  we  commonly 
call  it. 

But  there  is  another  thing  which  is  known  as 
sin,  besides  that  which  is  actually  committed  ; 
it  is  what  is  called  original  sin,  and  this  also  is 
believed  in  by  orthodox  Protestants  as  well  as 
by  Catholics.  What  is  meant  by  it  is  this : 
that  Adam  in  his  sin,  as  narrated  in  the  book 
of  Genesis,  lost  the  right  to  heaven;  and  that 
from  that  time — that  is,  from  the  very  beginning 
of  our  race — his  descendants  have  also  lost  that 
title  to  heaven.  A  Redeemer,  however,  was 
promised  immediately  after  Adam's  sin,  who 
was  to  restore  the  right  to  heaven  which  had 
been  lost ;  and  Christians  generally  acknow- 
ledge that  it  will  be  restored  to  those  who  be- 
lieve  in   Him.      Furthermore,     Catholics    and 


The  Immaculate  Conception,  85 

many  Protestants  believe  that  it  is  restored  even 
to  infants  incapable  of  belief  by  their  being 
baptized. 

Now,  what  the  Church  teaches  with  regard  to 
the  Blessed  Virgin  is  simply  this  :  that  to  her, 
by  a  special  privilege,  on  account  of  her  having 
been  selected  as  the  Mother  of  the  Redeemer, 
this  right  to  heaven  was  restored  even  before 
her  birth,  at  the  very  instant  of  her  conception  ; 
that  what  we  call  the  stain  of  original  sin  never 
was  upon  her.  That  is  what  the  word  ' '  im- 
maculate" means.  Macula,  in  I^atin,  means  a 
stain  or  spot;  *'  immaculate,"  then,  means  free 
from  stain  ;  and  to  say  * '  Immaculate  Concep- 
tion "  simply  means,  then,  that  her  human 
nature  was  free  at  its  very  conception  from  this 
stain  or  spot  of  sin,  being  in  that  respect  like 
that  of  her  Divine  Son.  But  this  does  not  for  a 
moment  imply  that  she  had  any  Divine  Nature, 
as  her  Son  had ;  nor  does  any  Catholic  dream 
of  understanding  it  in  that  way. 

Now,  what  objection  can  possibly  attach  to 
this,  except  that  no  positive  proof  of  it  may  ap- 
pear ?  No  reason  can  be  stated  why  it  should 
not  have  been  so  ;  there  is  no  impiety  or  idola- 
try in  it.  Of  course,  if  one  is  to  take  nothing  as 
belonging  to  the  Christian  faith  but  what  is 
plaiJily  or  unquestionably  stated  in  the  Bible, 
one  will  not  believe  or  accept  it ;  but  if  one  will 
leave  this,  which  I  think  has  been  fairly  shown 


86  The  Immaculate  Conception. 

in  what  precedes  to  be  unreasonable  ground, 
there  is  hardly  anything  in  which  the  consent 
of  the  Christian  world  previous  to  the  Protes- 
tant Reformation,  or  since  that  outside  of  the 
influence  of  that  Reformation,  has  been  more 
unanimous.  The  Greek  and  other  Oriental 
churches  do  not  formally  state  it ;  but  it  is  quite 
safe  to  say  that  their  members  would  not  and 
do  not  reject  it,  for  the  devotion  to  the  Blessed 
Virgin  has  been,  if  anything,  greater  with  them 
than  even  in  the  Roman  Church.  And  the 
question  about  it  among  Catholics,  which  did 
exist  before  the  solemn  definition  in  1854,  was 
not  so  much  whether  it  was  a  true  doctrine, 
but  rather  whether  it  was  a  matter,  properly 
speaking,  of  the  faith  ;  or  whether  the  original 
stain  did  not  rest  for  an  instant,  as  it  were,  on 
Mary,  being  removed  the  instant  afterward  ; 
attaching  to  her,  as  we  may  say,  purely  as  a 
matter  of  form.  These  doubts  were  not  very 
grave  ones,  and  all  were  probably  glad  to  have 
them  removed. 

Try,  then,  to  clear  away  the  prejudices  and 
imaginations  which  you  may  have  entertained 
about  this  very  simple  matter,  and  if  you  do 
not  agree  with  us  and  the  great  majority  of 
Christendom  about  it,  do  not  think  that  we  are 
idolaters  because  we  think  as  we  do. 


CHAPTER  IX. 

THK    HOI.Y   KUCHARIST. 

THE  next  article  which  we  find  in  our  pro- 
fession is  as  follows  :  ' '  the  true,  real,  and 
sulfstantial prese7ice  of  the  Body  and  Blood,  together 
ivith  the  Soul  and  Divinity,  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,  in  the  most  holy  Sao'anient  of  the  Eu- 
charist. 

In  this  we  have  the  statement  of  one  of  the 
great  mysteries  of  the  faith;  one  which,  as  I 
have  said,  was  in  the  beginning  kept  a  profound 
secret,  so  far  as  possible,  from  the  world  outside 
the  Christian  pale,  and  only  communicated  to 
those  who  had  been  received  into  it.  At  pres- 
ent, and  for  a  long  time  past,  the  discipline  has 
bee;i  different ;  it  is  now  explained,  as  far  as  it 
can  be,  to  all  who  desire  to  know  it ;  and  yet 
very  man^^,  as  did  the  Jews  in  the  time  of  our 
lyord  Himself,  misunderstand  and  misrepre- 
sent it. 

Perhaps  this  is  not  so  much  to  be  wondered 
at ;  for  it  is,  of  course,  a  matter  impossible  for 
us  here  to  thoroughly  understand.  But  that 
should  only  dispose  us  to  try  to  understand  it 
better ;  for. that  it  is  taught  by  our  blessed  Lord 
Himself  quite  explicitly,  cannot  be  denied. 
87 


88  The  Holy  Eucharist, 

Please  turn  in  your  Bible  to  the  sixth  chapter 
of  St.  John's  Gospel.  I  will  quote  here  from 
your  own  version,  for  that  you  will  not  gainsay. 
We  read  in  verse  51  :  ''I  am  the  living  bread 
which  came  down  from  heaven  ;  if  an}^  man  eat 
of  this  bread,  he  shall  live  for  ever ;  and  the 
bread  that  I  will  give  is  my  flesh,  w^hich  I  will 
give  for  the  life  of  the  world." 

The  Jews  who  heard  Him,  as  I  have  said, 
misunderstood  this,  and  were  shocked  at  it. 
They  said  (v.  52),  "  How  can  this  man  give  us 
his  flesh  to  eat?  " 

Now,  Protestants  generally  say  that  our  Lord 
only  meant  this  figuratively ;  that  He  did  not 
mean  that  any  one  was  to  receive  Him  sub- 
.stantially,  but  only  to  commune  with  Him  in  a 
spiritual  manner.  And  indeed  we  agree  that  it 
is  only  the  spiritual  union  with  Him  that  is'  of 
use ;  the  merely  material  or  corporal  reception 
of  His  body  would  be  of  no  avail,  as  we  read 
below  (v.  63).  But  if  there  was,  after  all,  to  be 
no  actual  reception  of  Him  corporally.  He 
could  easily  have  removed  all  their  objections 
by  saying  at  once  that  a  spiritual  communion 
was  all  that  was  intended.  But  instead  of  this. 
He  goes  on  (v.  53)  :  "Verily,  verily,  I  say 
unto  you,  except  ye  eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of 
man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye  have  no  life  in 
you."  If  what  He  had  said  was  merely  a 
metaphor,  why  not  explain  it  away ;  but  no,  He 


The  Holy  Eucharist,  89 

goes  on  to  state  it  even  more  strongly  than 
before. 

Why  should  He  do  this,  if  not  to  show  un- 
mistakably that  there  really  was  to  be  a 
mysterious  substantial  reception  of  Him,  im- 
parting great  spiritual  blessings  which  could 
not  otherwise  be  received  ;  having  for  its  object 
these  spiritual  blessings,  but  requiring  this 
means  for  their  attainment  ?  And,  if  his  hear- 
ers had  all  accepted  all  that  Protestants  say- 
was  meant — and  certainly  any  one  who  believed 
in  Him  even  as  a  good  and  holy  man  might  do 
that,  there  being  now  no  other  mystery  than 
this  definitely  proposed  as  a  test  of  their  faith — 
why  should  He  say,  "  there  are  some  of  you  that 
believe  not"  (v.  64)?  And  why  should  some 
of  them  actually  ' '  go  back  and  walk  no  more 
with  him"  (v.  66)  except  that  they,  like  Protest- 
ants, felt  that  this  mystery  about  the  reception 
of  His  flesh  and  blood  was  something  too  hard 
for  them  to  accept  ?  It  could  hardly  have  been 
the  allusion  to  His  death  or  to  His  ascension 
which  drove  them  away.  These  were  not  the 
points  against  which  tliey  had  protested. 

But  after  all,  we  must  not  get  into  contro- 
versy. I  only  want  to  call  your  attention  to  this 
•  matter,  and  have  you  think  of  it  yourselves. 

We  all  know  that  this  mystery  was  afterward 
Still  more  solemnly  proclaimed  by  our  Saviour 
when,  at  the  Last  Supper,  He  took  bread,  as  ali 


90  The  Holy  Eucharist. 


the  evangelists  except  St.  John  record,  and  said, 
''This  is  my  body,"  and  wine,  saying,  ''This 
is  my  blood,"  and  told  them  to  receive  these, 
and  to  continue  to  do  what  He  had  then  done, 
in  remembrance  of  Him. 

Here  again,  of  course,  I  know  it  is  said  that 
His  words  were  only  to  be  taken  in  a  spiritual 
sense ;  that  He  meant  ' '  This  represents  my 
body,  or  my  blood,"  and  nothing  more. 

Perhaps  ;  but  if  so,  is  it  not  rather  strange 
that  He  should  have  allowed  them  to  misunder- 
stand Him,  as  they  seem  certainly  to  have  done? 
Even  if  it  is  claimed  that  the  Apostles  and  first 
Christians  had  the  present  views  of  Protestants 
about  this  matter,  it  must  be  conceded  that  the 
words  of  Christ  were  understood  literally  very 
soon  afterward ;  that  this  literal  sense  is 
brought  forward  and  insisted  on  repeatedly  by 
the  Christian  writers  of  early  times,  and  that 
there  is  no  trace  of  any  protest  against  it  up  to 
the  times  of  the  Reformation.  Christendom 
seems  to  have  been  more  singularly  in  accord 
about  this  matter  than  about  any  other;  the 
quarrels  and  controversies  of  the  growing 
Church  did  not  concern  it ;  all  agreed  and  took 
for  granted  that  Christ  was  really  present  in  the 
Holy  Communion,  or  Kucharist,  of  which  all 
partook ;  that  the  consecrated  bread  and  wine 
became  indeed  and  in  truth  His  Body  and  His 
Blood. 


The  Holy  Eucharist.  91 

It  seems  hardly  credible  that  Almighty  God 
should  have  allowed  such  a  gigantic  delusion  to 
fasten  itself  on  the  Church  in  its  very  cradle,  and 
to  remain  in  it  for  fifteen  centuries,  inducing  all 
Christians  to  the  worship  of  bread  and  wine. 
One  word  from  Christ  Himself  at  the  beginning 
would  so  easily  have  stopped  it ;  and  afterward 
some  one,  at  least,  could  have  been  raised  up 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  protest  against  it. 

But  so  far  was  this  from  being  the  case  that 
even  Luther  himself,  the  great  apostle  of  the 
Reformation,  believed  in  it  as  firmly  as  any 
one  else,  as  did  also  mau}^  others  who  protested 
against  Rome.  Zwingle,  however,  does  raise  his 
voice  against  it  ;  but  his  doctrine  is  looked  on 
with  horror  by  his  fellow- Reformers,  so  deeply 
has  the  belief  in  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in 
the  consecrated  elements  become  embedded  in 
the  very  structure  of  Christianity. 

It  is  true  that  doubts  in  a  certain  way  had 
been  raised  about  this  matter  about  three  cen- 
turies previous,  principally  by  Berengarius.  But 
these  doubts  did  not  concern  the  Real  Presence 
^  Itself,  but  rather  the  way  in  which  the  Church 
held  this  doctrine.  There  were  doubts  about 
what  is  called  ' '  transubstantiation  ' '  (what  this 
is  will  vSoon  be  explained)  ;  but  they  never  took 
any  real  hold  on  the  belief  of  the  faithful,  and 
were  repudiated  later  even  by  Berengarius  him- 
self. 


92  The  Holy  Eucharist, 

It  is  time  now  that  we  should  undervStand 
more  clearly  just  what  the  Catholic  faith  does 
teach   on  this  head. 

It  is,  then,  that  Christ  not  only  in  the  Last 
Supper  made  Himself  really  and  truly  present 
in  what  He  gave  to  His  Apostles  at  that  time, 
when  He  said  ''Take,  eat;  this  is  my  body,'* 
and  ' '  Drink  ye  all  of  it ;  this  is  my  blood  of 
the  new  testament"  (Matt.  xxvi.  26-28,  and 
similarl}^  Mark  xiv.  23-24  and  lyuke  xxii. 
19-20) ,  but  that  He  also  empowered  them  to  re- 
peat the  same  thing  which  He  had  done,  as 
indeed  distinctly  stated  by  St.  Luke,  "this  do 
in  remembrance  of  me  "    (xxii.  19). 

That  this  rite  has  been  celebrated  from  the 
very  foundation  of  Christianity  is  unquestion- 
able ;  and  in  fact  all  Protestant  denominations 
have  retained  it.  It  has  also  been  generally, 
indeed  almost  universally,  allowed  that  a  quali- 
fied minister  of  some  sort  was  needed  for  this 
sacred  rite  ;  that  it  was  not  a  thing  to  be  under- 
taken by  any  believer  in  general.  So  it  is  plain 
that  Christians  have  never  held  that  this  was 
something  to  be  done  only  by  the  Apostles 
themselves,  during  their  lifetime ;  but  that 
there  were  to  be  others  to  whom  this  office 
should  be  transmitted. 

The  Catholic  faith  holds  that  those  who  have 
succeeded  in  this  respect  to  the  office  of  the 
Apostles   are   the    bishops   and    priests   of  the 


TJie  Holy  Eucharist.       ,  93 

Church.  To  perform  this  rite  has  been  always 
regarded  as  the  principal  essential  office  of  the 
priest. 

He  performs  it  in  what  is  manifestly  the 
principal  service  of  the  Catholic  Church  ; 
what  we  call  the  Mass ;  this  corresponds  to 
what  Protestant  denominations  generally  call 
the  Communion  service. 

The  Mass  consists  first  of  various  prayers, 
with  the  reading  of  a  part  of  one  of  the  Elpistles, 
and  of  one  of  the  Gospels  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment. This  portion  varies  according  to  the  day 
of  the  ecclesiastical  calendar,  or  the  feast  which 
is  being  celebrated,  Then  follows  the  offering 
of  the  bread  and  wine  which  are  to  be  conse- 
crated ;  and  then  comes  the  more  solemn  part 
of  the  service,  in  which  the  consecration  of  the 
bread  and  the  wine  is  made,  using  the  same 
words  which  Christ  Himself  used  at  the  I^ast 
Supper,  as  recorded  in  the  Gospels.  The  con- 
secrated elements  are  elevated  for  a  moment  for 
the  adoration  of  the  people  ;  then  follow  some 
other  prayers,  after  which  the  priest  receives 
Communion,  which  is  afterward  distributed  to 
such  of  those  present  as  may  come  forward  for 
it.  After  a  few  more  prayers,  and  the  blessing 
of  the  priest  given  to  those  present,  the  cere- 
mony is  concluded. 

Now  what  do  we  hold  is  accomplished  by  the 
consecration  ?     We  hold  that  the  substance  of 


94  ^/^^  Holy  Eucharist, 


the  bread  and  wine  which  has  been  offered  passes 
away,  though  the  qualities,  or  "accidents" 
as  they  are  called,  remain,  such,  for  example,  as 
the  shape,  color,  taste,  etc.  For  the  substance 
of  the  bread  is  substituted  that  of  the  Body  of 
Christ ;  for  the  substance  of  the  wine,  that  of 
His  Blood. 

To  explain  accurately  what  is  meant  by  sub- 
stance would  require  some  knowledge  of  meta- 
physics ;  but  I  think  every  one  can  see  that 
there  is  such  a  thing,  and  that  it  is  different 
from  the  form  which  this  substance  may 
assume.  When  the  substance  takes  a  new 
form,  we  call  the  change  transformation  ;  when 
the  substance  itself  changes,  the  form  remain- 
ing the  same,  it  is  naturally  called  transubstan- 
tiatio7i. 

I  have  said  that  lyUther  himself  taught  that 
Christ  was  really  present  in  the  consecrated 
elements  ;  the  divergence  of  his  doctrine  from 
that  of  the  Church  was  that  he  maintained  that 
the  substance  of  the  bread  and  wine  remained 
together  with  that  of  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ.  His  doctrine  was  therefore  known  as 
co7isubsta7itiatio?i.  But  both  agreed,  you  see,  as 
to  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ. 

The  Church  further  teaches  that  the  Real 
Presence  of  Christ  remains  as  long  as  the  form 
remains  uncorrupted ;  when,  however,  that 
becomes  changed — as,  for  instance,  if  the  taste 


The  Holy  Eucharist,  95 

of  the  consecrated  wine  should  become  sour,  so 
that  it  would  no  longer  be  considered  as  wine 
but  as  vinegar — the  Real  Presence  would  no 
longer  remain.  But  as  the  form  does  always 
remain  unchanged  for  a  considerable  time,  un- 
less the  elements  are  received  in  Communion,  it 
is  clear  that  we  cannot  do  otherwise  than  recog- 
nize the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  in  them  by  the 
same  signs  of  adoration  which  we  should  give 
to  Christ  if  He  were  visibly  present. 

Now,  in  this  it  may  be  said  we  are  mistaken  ; 
that  the  Real  Presence  of  Christ  is  not  in  this 
which  appears  to  be  bread  and  wane,  any  more 
than  it  is  anywhere  else.  But  it  cannot  be 
justly  said  that  we  are  idolaters  by  any  one 
who  believes  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  any 
more  than  it  could  be  said  that  we  were  if  we 
paid  this  honor  to  Him  when  concealed  in  any 
other  way.  If  He  were  here  with  His  bodily 
form  as  He  was  during  His  earthly  life,  we 
should  be  justified,  nay  required,  to  pay  Him 
this  honor  and  worship  under  whatever  disguise 
He  might  choose  to  conceal  Himself,  if  we 
believed  He  was  really  there  ;  and  it  is  exactly 
the  same  in  this  case. 

You  will  easily  see  that  there  are  great 
mysteries  attached  to  this  doctrine,  especially 
that  of  the  Real  Presence  existing  in  so  many 
places  at  once ;  do  not  imagine  that  we  do  not 
see  these  difficulties,  though  Catholic  philoso- 


96  The  Holy  Eucharist. 

phy  does  much  to  remove  them.  But  so  there 
are  inscrutable  mysteries  connected  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  Three  Persons  in 
One  God.  But  the  mystery  exists  because  the 
doctrine  is  beyond  our  reason,  not  because  it  is 
contrary  to  it. 

For  it  must  not  be  imagined  with  regard  to 
this  doctrine  of  the  Real  Presence  that  it  is 
opposed  to  any  of  the  conclusions  of  science  ; 
with  regard  to  the  constitution  of  material 
things,  for  instance.  We  accept  without  diffi- 
culty all  that  science  has  really  established 
about  this,  though  all  scientific  men  will  ac- 
knowledge that  most  of  what  they  have  to  say 
about  this  is  of  the  nature  of  hypothesis,  not  of 
discovered  truth.  And  there  is  really  no  possi- 
bility of  any  physical  inquiries  ever  clashing 
with  the  faith  in  this  matter.  For  the  notion 
of  substance  is  not  a  physical,  but  a  metaphysi- 
cal one,  independent  of  physical  researches. 

We  may  then  dismiss  all  such  fears.  The 
only  point  we  have  really  to  consider  is  whether 
this  teaching  is  historically  identified  with  the 
Christian  teaching  itself;  and,  as  has  been  said, 
only  one  answer  can  be  given  to  this  question. 
If  any  doctrine  was  held  clearly  and  persistently 
from  the  earliest  ages  down  to  the  time  of  the 
Reformation,  it  is  this ;  and  if  a  different  doc- 
trine had  been  held  by  the  Apostles  and  their 
immediate   followers,    it  would   have    been    as 


The  Holy  Eucharist.  97 

utterly  impossible  to  introduce  a  tremendous 
innovation  like  this  without  protest  of  which 
we  should  now  have  some  record,  as  it  would 
be  to  introduce  this  doctrine  now  into  some 
Protestant  denomination  without  exciting  con- 
troversy. There  is,  then,  no  alternative  between 
accepting  it  and  denying  that  anything  definite 
in  the  way  of  Christian  faith  was  handed  down 
at  all  by  the  Apostles  to  those  who  listened  to 
their  teaching ;  and  I  am  presuming  all  along 
that  you  do  not  hold  this  latter  view. 

It  is  also  most  clearly  taught  in  the  Bible 
itself,  as  we  have  seen ;  more  clearly,  indeed, 
than    the  doctrine  of  the    Holy  Trinity  itself. 

It  remains  to  say  a  few  words  on  another 
aspect  which  the  Mass  has  in  the  mind  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

We  read  in  the  first  Epistle  of  St.  Paul  to  the 
Corinthians  (xi.  26),  "  As  often  as  ye  eat  this 
bread  and  drink  this  cup,  3^e  do  shew  the  I^ord's 
death  till  he  come."  These  words  are,  as  it 
were,  an  explanation  of  those  of  Christ  Him- 
self in  which  He  says  that  this  is  to  be  done  in 
remembrance  of  Him.  In  remembrance,  that  is, 
not  merely  in  a  general  or  affectionate  way,  but 
in  remembrance  of  His  great  work,  the  .shed- 
ding of  His  Blood  on  the  cross  for  our  sins. 

It  is  this  that  is  signified  by  the  double  form 
under  which  the  consecration  is  made.  The 
bread,  as  even  Protestants  hold,  represents  His 


98  The  Holy  Eucharist. 

Body  ;  the  wine,  His  Blood,  separated  or  shed 
from  His  Body. 

Now,  the  Catholic  Church  holds  that  though 
by  the  consecrating  words  Christ's  Body  is 
really  present  in  the  form  of  bread,  and  His 
Blood  in  that  of  wine,  still  they  cannot  now  be 
actually  separated.  St.  Paul  tells  us  :  "  Christ 
being  raised  from  the  dead,  dieth  no  more ; 
death  hath  no  more  dominion  over  Him."  His 
Blood  cannot  be  really  shed  again.  Where  His 
Body  is,  then,  there  is  His  Blood;  where  His 
Blood  is,  there  is  His  Body.  So  under  each 
form  or  species  Christ  is  wholly  present,  living, 
and  both  God  and  man  ;  as  our  profession  says, 
*'the  Body  and  Blood,  together  with  the  Soul 
and  Divinity";  not  each  by  itself  separately, 
but  all  together. 

Nevertheless  by  the  outward  sign  of  separa- 
tion furnished  by  the  double  form  or  appear- 
ance. His  sacrifice  and  Blood-shedding  on  the 
Cross  is  represented  ;  and  thus  we  hold  that  in 
the  Mass,  His  Sacrifice  made  once  for  all  upon 
the  Cross  is  represented  and  offered  in  a  spe- 
cially efficacious  way.  This  is  the  great  sacri- 
ficial service  of  the  New  I^aw,  foretold  by  the 
Prophet  Malachi  (i.  11)  :  '*  From  the  rising  of 
^he  sun  even  to  the  going  down  of  the  same  my 
name  shall  be  great  among  the  Gentiles  ;  and  in 
every  place  incense  shall  be  offered  unto  my 
name,  and  a  pure  offering."     This  sacrifice  is 


The  Holy  Eucharist,  99 


also  foreshadowed  in  that  of  Melchisedech,  who 
"  brought  forth  bread  and  wine,  and  he  was  the 
priest  of  the  most  high  God"  (Gen.  xiv.  18)  ; 
and  St.  Paul  says  (Heb.  xiii.  10)  :  ''  We  have 
an  altar,  whereof  they  have  no  right  to  eat 
which  serve  the  tabernacle."  Remember  this  is 
not  a  new  sacrifice,  different  from  that  of  Christ  ; 
that  is  the  one  sacrifice,  which  those  of  the  Jews 
represented,  and  which  alone  has  power  to 
atone  for  our  sins.  It  is  the  commemoration 
and  the  offering  of  that  one  sacrifice  which  we 
have  in  the  Mass  ;  and  it  is  for  that  reason  that 
the  Church  attaches  such  great  importance 
to  it. 

Now  one  thing  more.  You  know,  perhaps, 
that  in  Communion,  whether  received  at  Mass 
or  at  some  other  time,  lay  people  with  us  do  not 
partake  of  the  cup  or  chalice,  but  receive  only 
under  the  form  of  bread.  Protestants  complain 
that  this  is  only  receiving  half  of  the  Commu- 
nion to  which  they  are  entitled  ;  but  it  is  clear 
from  what  was  said  a  little  while  ago  that  Christ 
must  necessarily  be  entirely  received  under  each 
kind,  as  He  must  be  really  present  in  each,  it 
not  being  possible  that  He  should  be  divided. 
There  is,  then,  nothing  more  to  be  received  by 
taking  both,  and  to  consider  it  necessary  to  give 
or  receive  both  would  imply  a  doubt  as  to  the 
"full  presence  of  Christ  in  each.  The  matter, 
then,  is  not  important  in  this  respect,  as  long  as 


lOO  The  Holy  Eticharist, 

the  Death  of  Christ  is  fully  represented  by  the 
consumption  of  both  when  Mass  is  said;  and 
for  this  purpose  both  species  are  received  by 
the  priest.  But  this  is  not  a  personal  privilege ; 
should  he  receive  when  not  himself  saying- 
Mass,  he  receives,  like  the  laity,  the  form  of 
bread  alone. 

The  matter  is  one  of  discipline  ;  and  the  rule 
had  to  be  made  as  it  now  stands,  on  account  of 
the  impossibility  of  the  large  numbers  of  people 
who  go  to  Communion  in  the  Catholic  Church 
receiving  the  form  of  wine  without  danger  of 
spilling,  or  of  contamination  in  passing  from 
mouth  to  mouth. 

Perhaps  you  think,  by  the  way,  that  there 
are  not  so  many  people  after  all  who  do  go  to 
Communion  in  the  Catholic  Church.  This  is 
because  you  do  not  go  early  enough  to  the 
church  to  see  them.  Few  go  at  a  late  Mass, 
because  we  have  a  law  that  one  must  take  no 
food  or  drink  at  all  from  midnight  till  the  time 
of  receiving.  This  law  is  made  for  the  sake  of 
due  reverence.  So  all  that  can  do  so  naturally 
go  to  Communion  early.  Go  to  a  Catholic 
church  at  six  or  seven  o'clock  of  a  Sunday 
morning,  and  you  will  see  quite  enough  to 
satisfy  you. 


CHAPTER  X. 

THE   SKVKN   SACRAMKNTS. 

OUR  next  article  is  :  ''  The  seven  Sacraments 
instituted  by  Jesus  Christ  for  the  salvation 
of  mankind ;  that  is  to  say,  Baptism,  Confirma- 
tion, Eucharist,  Penance,  Extreme  Unction, 
Order,  Matrimony." 

The  principal  difference  between  the  Catholic 
doctrine  and  that  of  Protestants  on  the  point 
here  proposed  is  that  we  admit  seven  sacra- 
ments, while  they  usually  admit  two,  and  only 
two;  namely,  Baptism  and  Eucharist  or  Holy 
Communion,  if  indeed  they  have  not' come  to 
regard  these  as  merely  appropriate  ceremonies, 
in  spite  of  what  our  I^ord  says,  Mark  xvi.  i6 
and  John  vi.  54.  And  yet  sometimes  they  are 
not  very  clear  about  this.  In  the  Episcopal 
catechism,  found  in  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  we  find  as  an  answer  to  the  question 
how  many  sacraments  there  are,  "Two  only, 
as  generally  necessary  to  salvation."  That, 
you  see,  is  entirely  non-committal.  Being 
necessary  to  salvation  really  has  n'othing  to  do 
with  the  essence  of  a  sacrament,  y  It  is  possible 
to  be  saved  without  any  sacrament  at  all ;  other- 
wise no  one  could  have  been  saved  l)efore  the 


I02  The  Seven  Sacraments, 

sacraments  were  instituted  by  Christ^  And 
even  now  it  is  possible  to  be  saved  without 
any  of  the  sacraments ;  even  Baptism  itself  is 
not  absolutely  necessary ;  for  one  who  knows 
nothing  about  it,  or  has  no  one  to  baptize  him, 
can  be  saved  if  he  has  perfect  sorrow  for  sin, 
and  turns  to  God  with  his  whole  heart,  desiring 
and  purposing  to  do  all  things  which  He  has 
commanded. 

What,  then,  is  the  idea  of  a  sacrament,  or  what 
is  its  true  definition  ?  It  is  a  rite  or  ceremony 
permanently  instituted  by  Christ,  for  the  purpose 
of  signifying  some  grace  from  God,  and  confer- 
ring that  grace  on  the  soul.  The  first  question, 
then,  as  to  whether  some  rite  or  ceremony  is  a 
sacrament,  is  whether  it  was  ordained  by  Christ ; 
the  second,  whether  it  was  instituted  to  signify 
vSome  special  grace,  and  to  confer  that  grace  on 
all  receiving  it. 

Now,  Protestants,  on  account  of  the  principle 
which  they  generally  hold  that  no  certain 
information  can  be  obtained  as  to  what  Christ 
did  except  from  the  Scripture,  have  evidently 
exposed  themselves  to  the  risk  of  missing  some 
of  the  sacraments.  And  though  the  grace 
which  the  lost  sacraments  confer  may  not  be 
one  necessary  to  salvation,  still  it  would  be  a 
pity  to  lose  it,  all  the  same.  So  it  would  be 
well,  in  this  matter  especially,  to  be  pretty  sure 
that  there  is  no  source  outside  the   Bible  from 


The  Seven  Sacraments.  103 

which  we  can  get  information  as  to  what  Christ 
established  to  be  done  in  His  Church  for  the 
spiritual  benefit  of  those  in  it,  or  those  desiring 
to  come  in. 

It  may  be  remarked,  however,  that  it  seems 
pretty  clear  that  on  the  authority  of  Scripture 
alone  at  least  two  sacraments  more  should  be 
admitted.  For  we  read  (John  xx.  22,  23)  : 
''  When  he  had  said  this,  he  breathed  on  them  ; 
and  he  said  to  them :  Receive  ye  the  Holy 
Ghost ;  whose  sins  you  shall  forgive,  they  are 
forgiven  them  ;  and  whose  sins  you  shall  retain, 
they  are  retained."  Now,  here  is  a  definite 
institution  by  Christ  of  a  great  grace  which  His 
disciples — those,  that  is,  who  were  present  on 
this  occasion — were  to  confer  on  others,  namely, 
the  forgiveness  of  their  sins  ;  and  also  there  is  an 
institution  by  Him  of  a  certain  class  of  persons 
to  exercise  this  power,  or  to  confer  this  grace, 
by  which  they  were  set  apart  from  the  rest  of 
the  Christian  community. 

It  would  seem,  then,  plainly  here  that  we  have 
the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  or  of  the  absolution 
of  sin  by  human  ministers  ;  and  also  that  of 
Order,  or  the  setting  apart  of  a  certain  order  or 
class  of  persons  among  His  followers  who  were 
to  confer  the  Sacrament  of  Penance.  And  there 
is  also  full  as  much  evidence  from  the  text  of 
the  Bible  that  this  was  to  be  a  permanent  Chris- 
tian institution  as  there  is  for  the  Sacrament  of 


I04  TJie  Seven  Sacraments. 

Baptism.  For  that,  too,  when  He.  committed  it 
to  His  Apostles  (Matt,  xxviii.  19),  ''Going, 
therefore,  teach  ye  all  nations,  baptizing  them 
in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  was  given,  as  it  stands, 
merely  as  a  personal  charge ;  He  did  not  say 
that  others  were  to  do  it  after  them.  He  said, 
it  is  true,  that  He  would  always  be  with  them, 
even  to  the  end  of  the  world  (v.  20)  ;  but  it 
would  be  giving  a  strange  sense  to  these  words 
to  suppose  that  they  only  applied  to  the  offices 
of  baptizing  and  teaching ;  and  as  nothing 
similar  is  recorded  in  connection  with  the  Holy 
Communion,  the  want  of  it  would  imply  that 
that  also  was  only  a  temporary  institution. 

Another  contradiction  shows  itself  in  the  doc- 
trine of  Protestants  in  their  not  admitting  the 
washing  of  the  feet  (recorded  by  St.  John  xiii. 
3-15)  as  a  sacrament;  for  on  the  authority  of 
Scripture  alone  it  has  as  definite  a  blessing  or 
grace  attached  to  it,  and  is  as  distinctly  enjoined 
by  Christ,  as  Baptism  or  Holy  Communion.  For 
He  said  to  Peter  (v.  8)  :  "If  I  wash  thee  not, 
thou  shalt  have  no  part  with  me,"  and  He  says 
(v.  14)  :  ''If  then  I,  being  your  Lord  and 
Master,  have  washed  your  feet,  you  ought  also 
to  w^ash  one  another's  feet." 

On  the  face,  then,  of  Scripture,  this  washing 
of  the  feet  is  a  matter  seemingly  of  great  im- 
portance, conferring  a  great  blessing,  and  cer- 


The  Seven  Sacraments,  105 

tainly  established  by  Christ ;  and  yet  ProtevStants 
have  no  ceremony  of  the  kind,  though  it  exists 
in  the  CathoUc  Church,  being  one  of  the  cere- 
monies of  Holy  Week.  Catholics,  however,  do 
not  regard  it  as  a  sacrament ;  but  there  is  no 
way  of  deciding  that  it  is  not  so,  unless  we  are 
willing  to  be  guided  by  something  besides  the 
mere  text  of  Scripture  itself. 

And,  in  point  of  fact,  Protestants  have  been  so 
guided.  The}^  did  not  take  this  to  be  a  sacra- 
ment, and  why  ?  Simply  because  there  was  no 
evidence  that  it  had  ever  been  so  regarded  in 
the  Church.  If,  then,  they  w^ere  so  willing  to 
take  the  Church's  decision  against  this  being  a 
sacrament,  though  the  Bible  seems  to  say  that 
it  is,  why  not  also  accept  the  decision  of  the 
Church  that  Confirmation,  evidently  practised 
by  the  Apostles  (Acts  viii.  14-17  and  xix. 
2-6),  and  Extreme  Unction  (described  by  St. 
James  v.  14-15)  are  sacraments  instituted  by 
Christ,  though  the  Scripture  does  not  say  that 
they  were  ? 

It  would  seem  that  we  are,  in  this  matter  at 
least,  in  a  mannei  forced  to  leave  the  purel}' 
Scriptural  ground  on  which  Protestants  claim 
to  stand,  and  follow  the  more  reasonable  course 
of  admitting  other  evidence  as  well ;  and  if  we 
do  so,  we  find  at  once  that  the  sdven  Sacraments 
above  named  have  been  accepted  from  the  earli- 
est   ages   of   Christianity    from    which   we   can 


io6     .'  The  Seven  Sacraments 

collect  evidence  ;  that  they  are  accepted  by  all 
the  Christian  churches  through  the  world  ex- 
cept those  formed  at  the  time  of  the  Protestant 
Reformation.  Why,  then,  have  such  difficulty 
about  accepting  them  ?  There  is  nothing  idola- 
trous or  superstitious  in  the  idea  of  them,  unless 
there  be  also  in  Baptism  and  Holy  Communion. 
Of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance  I  shall  have 
something  to  say  later,  as  this  matter  is  much 
misunderstood  by  Protestants,  and  notions  are 
entertained  by  them  about  it  which  would  cer- 
tainly imply  great  reproach  to  the  Church  if 
they  were  only  true.  Some  remarks  will  also 
be  made  about  some  of  the  others,  especially  in 
stating  the  Catholic  doctrine  relating  to  mar- 
riage or  matrimony.  At  present  it  suffices  to 
state  what  w^e  believe  to  be  the  graces  attached 
to  these  seven  Sacraments,  as  we  hold  them. 
These  graces,  then,  are : 

1.  For  Baptism,  by  which  one  becomes  a 
Christian,  to  remit  all  sin,  original  and  actual, 
and  the  penalty  of  sin,  to  enlighten  the  mind,  to 
diminish  concupiscence  or  the  desire  for  sin, 
and  to  make  the  soul  fruitful  of  good  works. 

2.  For  Confirmation,  to  strengthen  Christians 
to  profess  and  maintain  their  faith  courageously. 

3.  For  the  Eucharist,  to  nourish  the  Christian 
life,  to  increase  grace,  to  produce  a  distaste  for 
merely  worldly  things,  and  to  draw  the  soul  to 
union  with  God. 


The  Seven  Sacraments.  107 

4.  For  Penance,  to  remit  sins  committed  after 
Baptism,  and  to  give  strength  for  avoiding  sin, 
and  persevering  in  a  good  life. 

5.  For  Extreme  Unction,  to  remove  the  re- 
mains of  sin,  to  relieve  the  souls  of  the  sick,  to 
increase  confidence  in  God,  to  give  strength  to 
resist  temptation,  and  to  enable  illness  to  be 
supported  with  patience ;  and  sometimes  to  cure 
the  disease  and  restore  health,  if  it  be  God's  will. 

6.  For  Order,  to  make  the  ministers  of  Christ 
fit  for  their  sacred  duties,  to  perform  them  witli 
due  piety.  This  sacrament  has  various  degrees  ; 
those  ordained  are  bishops,  priests,  and  dea- 
cons. The  priest  has  the  power,  by  this  sacra- 
ment, of  consecrating  the  Eucharist,  and  of  ab- 
solving sins ;  besides  this,  the  bishop  has  those 
of  giving  the  sacrament  of  Confirmation,  and 
of  ordaining  priests,  and  consecrating  priests  to 
be  bishops. 

7.  For  Matrimony,  to  restrain  inordinate  con- 
cupiscence, to  give  strength  to  bear  the  burdens 
of  married  life,  to  keep  conjugal  fidelity,  and  to 
bring  up  children  religiously  and  well. 

These,  then,  are  the  seven  Sacraments, 
honored  and  accepted  by  the  Catholic  Church, 
and  in  constant  use  within  her  pale.  Can  it  be 
said  that,  if  they  really  are  what  she  claims 
them  to  be,  they  are  anything  but  great  bless- 
ings and  mercies  of  God  ?  If  indeed  the 
Church  taught  that  the  gifts  which  they  bestow 


io8  The  Seven  Sacraments. 

could  be  obtained  without  any  proper  disposi- 
tions on  the  part  of  the  recipient ;  that  the  for- 
giveness of  sin  could  be  obtained,  for  instance, 
in  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  without  au}^ 
sorrow  for  sin  or  purpose  of  avoiding  it ;  then 
indeed  they  would  encourage  Christians  to 
neglect  virtue,  and  trust  to  the  sacraments 
simply  as  a  means  of  escaping  the  consequences 
of  the  sins  they  might  commit. 

But,  in  point  of  fact,  the  Church  most  dis- 
tinctly teaches,  and  Catholics  know  very  well, 
that  to  obtain  the  blessings  or  graces  of  the 
majority  of  them,  it  is  necessary  to  be,  before 
attempting  to  receive  them,  in  what  is  called 
the  state  of  grace ;  that  is  to  say,  that  one's 
sins  must  have  been  already  forgiven,  that  one 
must  be  leading  a  good  life,  avoiding  sin  most 
carefully,  and  loving  God  with  one's  whole 
heart ;  and  that  to  approach  them  while  living 
a  sinful  life,  to  receive  Communion,  for  example, 
while  still  attached  to  sin  and  willing  to  commit 
it,  would  not  only  utterly  deprive  the  sacrament 
of  any  blessing  for  the  recipient,  but  would 
make  his  act  in  r-eceiving  it  a  frightful  sin  of 
sacrilege ;  that  is,  it  would  be  a  profanation  of 
most  sacred  things  ;  as  we  read  in  St.  Paul's 
first  epistle  to  the  Corinthians  (xi.  29)  :  ''He 
that  eatetli  and  drinketh  unworthily,  eateth  and 
drinketh  judgment  to  himself,  not  discerning 
the  body  of  the  Lord." 


The  Seven  Sacraments.  109 

For  Christians  even  to  marry  without  being 
in  the  state  of  grace  is,  therefore,  regarded  by 
the  Church  as  a  mortal  sin  of  sacrilege  ;  and  to 
avoid  this  they  are  required  to  go  to  Confession 
before  the  wedding. 

For  the  two  sacraments,  Baptism  and  Pen- 
ance, which  are  intended  for  the  forgiveness  of 
sin,  it  is  not  expected,  of  course,  that  one's  sins 
will  be  forgiven  before  approaching  them.  But 
it  is  expected  and  required  that  if  these  sacra- 
ments are  to  produce  the  effect  of  the  forgive- 
ness of  actual  sin,  that  sin  must  be  repented  of, 
and  a  firm  determination  made  to  avoid  it  for 
the  future. 

A  word  may  be  said  about  the  Sacrament  of 
Extreme  Unction.  As  you  see  by  what  has 
been  said  above,  the  effect  of  this,  as  far  as  sin 
is  concerned,  is  to  remove,  not  sin  itself  but  its 
remains ;  for  though  sin  is  forgiven  in  the 
Sacrament  of  Penance,  so  that  the  sinner  passes 
into  the  state  of  grace  or  the  love  of  God,  still 
his  soul  is  not  re.stored  to  quite  the  same  con- 
dition, unless  he  have  extraordinary  penitence, 
that  it  would  have  been  in  had  he  not  sinned. 

You  may,  however,  have  noticed  that  the 
priest  does  not  hesitate  to  give  this  Sacrament, 
or,  as  we  say,  to  anoint,  in  cases  where  Catho- 
lics even  of  rather  careless  lives  are  struck 
down  by  some  accident  or  sudden  disease,  de- 
priving them  of  their  senses.     The  explanation 


no  The  Seven  Sacraments, 

of  this  is,  that  where  the  Sacrament  of  Penance 
is  impossible,  it  is  held  that  this  takes  its  place  ; 
but  here,  as  for  Penance  itself,  it  is  not  con- 
sidered to  have  any  effect  unless  the  sinner  has 
interiorly  made  an  act  of  true  sorrow  or  re- 
pentance, which  is  necessarily  accompanied  by 
the  purpose  of  abandoning  sin  for  the  future. 

In  short,  we  do  not  hold  that  the  sacraments 
have  the  effect  of  converting  sinners  or  restor- 
ing them  to  the  state  of  grace  and  the  favot  of 
God  without  their  own  co-operation  by  a  thorough 
and  hearty  repenta7ice . 

But,  it  may  be  asked,  what  is  the  use  of  these 
sacraments  which  confer  the  pardon  of  sin  if 
they  require  repentance  also  ?  With  regard  to 
Baptism,  I  will  say  now  that  it  takes  away 
original  sin,  which  has  been  already  explained, 
even  from  infants,  and  from  idiots  who  have 
always  been  incapable  of  making  a  rational  act ; 
and  furthermore  that  it  is  by  Baptism  that  we 
become  Christians  and  capable  of  receiving  the 
other  sacraments,  which  are  offered  only  to  the 
baptized.  There  is,  however,  more  to  be  said 
on  this  matter ;  and  it  will  be  said  when  I  come 
to  speak  more  specially  about  the  subject  of 
confession,  later  on. 


CHAPTER  XI. 

PURGATORY. 

riVERYBODY  knows  that  Catholics  believe 
1-^  in  purgatory,  but  few  outside  the  Church 
seem  to  have  a  clear  notion  of  what  we  mean  by 
it.  Many  apparently  think  that  we  believe  that 
all  Catholics  are  saved,  but  that  they  all,  ex- 
cept perhaps  the  priests,  have  to  go  to  purga- 
tory, out  of  which  the  priest  will  get  them  by  his 
prayers,  or  by  ceremonies  of  some  sort,  if  he  is 
only  paid  enough  money  for  doing  so. 

Now  try  to  put  yourself  in  our  place  for  a 
moment.  Think  how  you  would  feel  if  we 
made  these  sweeping  charges  against  you.  Is 
it  possible  that  any  one  who  recognizes  the 
principles  of  morality,  and  who  has  common 
sense,  could  believe  that  a  man  or  woman  can 
be  saved  by  simply  professing  the  Catholic 
faith  ?  I  am  sorry  to  say  that  it  is  a  matter  of 
history  that  lyUther  and  the  original  Protestants 
who  followed  him  did  hold  that  we  are  saved 
by  faith  alone,  and  that  the  more  we  sin,  the 
more  we  glorify  this  saving  faith  ;  and  this  idea, 
nominally,  exists  at  the  present  day  among 
those  who  have  inherited  the  first  creeds  of  the 
Reformation.     But  still  all  practically  acknowl- 


112  Fiirgatory, 


edge  that  to  give  proof  of  being  a  Christian  in- 
deed, one  should  live  a  good  life  ;  that  this  is 
the  natural  result  of  saving  faith.  And  Catho- 
lics have  always  held  this  more  formally  and 
distinctly,  teaching,  as  the  Bible  teaches,  that 
nothing  defiled  can  enter  heaven  ;  and  hence,  of 
course,  that  if  a  Catholic,  no  matter  how  strong 
his  faith  may  be,  commits  mortal  sin,  and  dies 
without  sincerely  repenting  of  it,  he  goes  in- 
fallibly to  hell.  The  principal  practical  differ- 
ence between  us  and  you  is  that  we  are  more 
strict  as  to  what  constitutes  mortal  or  grievous 
sin  ;  for  instance,  we  believe  that  to  give  way, 
even  internally,  to  a  lustful  imagination  or  de- 
sire, is  a  grievous  sin,  deserving  of  hell  for  all 
eternity. 

It  is  plain,  then,  that  we  cannot  believe  that 
all  Catholics  are  saved ;  for  unfortunately  it  is 
not  only  too  probable,  but  even  we  may  say 
certain,  that  many  of  them  are  suddenly  cut  off 
in  sin,  or  die  without  truly  repenting  and  pur- 
posing to  amend  it. 

And  think  of  the  grossness  of  the  charge  that 
your  notions  involve  against  your  fellow-citi- 
zens. How  would  you  feel  if  you  were  a  priest, 
and  were  told  that  you  undertook  to  get  every 
one  for  whom  application  was  made  out  of 
purgatory  (whatever  that  may  be)  for  a  money 
consideration,  and  that  (as  is  often  said)  you 
worked   on   the   feelings  of  poor  and  ignorant 


people,  perhaps  even  preaching  what  you  did 
not  yourself  believe,  in  order  to  extort  money 
from  them  ? 

Try  at  least  to  remember  that  a  priest  is  not 
a  mysterious  being,  evolved  somehow  out  of  the 
depths  of  what  you  call  the  dark  ages  ;  but  that 
he  is  a  man  of  at  any  rate  a  fairly  decent  char- 
acter in  society,  against  whom  grave  charges 
of  immorality  in  general  are  seldom  established ; 
and  see  if  it  is  quite  fair  to  accuse  him  without 
any  real  proof  of  intolerable  meanness,  tyranny, 
and  imposition  such  as  this  would  be.  And  if 
you  are  not  acquainted  with  any  priests,  and 
have  a  general  idea,  such  as  unfortunately 
those  of  our  Anglo-Saxon  race,  so  called,  are 
rather  apt  to  have,  that  foreigners  are  capable 
of  all  vSorts  of  villany,  and  that  priests  are  most- 
ly foreigners,  or  Irishmen  at  any  rate,  I  would 
suggest  to  you  that  not  a  few  of  them  are,  like 
the  writer  of  these  pages,  as  much  of  what  you 
would  call  pure  American  descent  and  family 
as  you  are  yourself,  and  have  perhaps  been  as 
strong  Protestants  as  you  are  now. 

Then  try  to  give  up  all  this  nonsense,  handed 
down  to  you  from  the  dark  ages  of  ignorance 
about  the  Catholic  faith  in  which  your  fathers 
lived,  and  just  listen  to  a  little  truth  about  it 
from  one  who  has  had  ideas  like  yours,  but 
now  knows  what  he  is  talking  about. 

Well,  then,  the  fact  is,  that  we  believe  that 


114  Purgatory, 


the  Catholic  who  loves  God  and  his  neighbor  is 
saved,  and  that  the  Catholic  who  commits  a 
grievous  sin,  and  dies  without  true  repentance, 
is  damned.  But  we  believe  that  Catholics  who 
are  saved,  and  are  sure  therefore  of  heaven  in 
the  end,  do  not  necessarily  enter  on  it  immedi- 
ately. For  there  are  sins  which  are  not  griev- 
ous or  mortal.  Such  sins  we  call  venial.  I 
hardly  think  you  would  seriously  believe  that  a 
boy  who  stole  an  apple  from  an  orchard  or  from 
a  grocery  store  would  be  condemned  to  hell  for 
it ;  on  the  other  hand,  you  do  believe  that  a 
murderer  or  an  adulterer  dying  impenitent 
would,  no  matter  if  he  did  have  faith  in  Christ. 
For  dying  impenitent  would  mean  that  he  did 
not  care  about  the  offence  to  God  in  his  murder 
or  adultery,  and  was  ready  to  commit  more  if 
it  suited  his  convenience.  This  distinction  be- 
tween mortal  and  venial  sins  is  then  simply 
common  sense.  Of  course  we  cannot  always 
decide  whether  a  sin  is  mortal  or  venial,  but 
that  there  is  a  difference  between  the  two  is 
plain. 

Now,  it  is  on  account  of  these  venial  sins  that 
we  believe  most  of  those  who  are  saved  do  not 
enter  heaven  immediately.  For  though  they 
are  venial  or  comparatively  easy  to  be  forgiven 
(for  that  is  what  the  word  "venial"  means), 
still  they  are  sins,  and  they  defile  the  soul ;  and 
as  we  have  seen,    nothing    defiled  can    enter 


Purgatory,  115 


heaven.  The  soul  with  the  taint  of  sin  on  it, 
however  slight,  cannot  see  the  face  of  God.  It 
must  be  purified  first,  and  there  is  nothing  like 
suffering  patiently  borne  to  purify  a  soul. 
This  we  cannot  help  seeing,  even  in  this  world. 

Now,  purgatory  means  a  state  of  purification 
or  purging  from  sin  by  suffering;  it  is,  then, 
entirely  reasonable  that  the  soul  not  as  yet 
thoroughly  purified  in  this  world  should  be  in 
purgatory  for  a  time,  till  this  purification  is 
accomplished. 

But  in  order  that  this  doctrine  may  be  more 
thoroughly  understood,  I  must  explain  to  yoU 
the  Catholic  teaching  about  satisfaction  for  sin. 
I  shall  begin  a  little  way  back,  and  come  gradu- 
ally to  it. 

Perhaps  you  imagine — I  think  most  Protes- 
tants do — that  we  Catholics  believe  that  we  can 
atone  or  satisfy  for  siif  simply  by  doing  some 
good  works,  such  as  almsgiving,  or  by  punish- 
ing ourselves  for  it,  as  by  fasting  or  abstinence 
from  meat.  I  have,  however,  already  told  you 
that  this  is  not  the  case  ;  that  we  believe,  just 
as  much  as  any  Protestant  does,  that  Christ's 
Passion  and  Death  is  the  only  thing  that  can 
satisfy  for  our  sins.  We  have  faith  in  Christ  as 
our  Redeemer,  and  our  sole  Redeemer,  just  as 
much  as  any  Protestant  has  ;  and  what  is  more, 
every  Catholic  that  has  an  atom  of  the  instruc- 
tion which  we  endeavor  to  give   to«  all,  knows 


1 16  Purgatory. 

and  understands  this  fully  from  his  childhood. 
We  do  not,  then,  believe  that  we  are  saved  by 
our  own  good  works,  but  by  the  merits  of 
Christ ;  but  we  also  believe  that  we  camiot  avail 
ourselves  of  those  merits  of  Christ  unless  we 
have  besides  faith,  also  what  St.  Paul,  and  the 
Church  after  him,  call  charity. 

Now,  what  is  this  charity  of  which  St.  Paul 
speaks,  and  of  which  he  says  most  distinctly 
that  it  is  greater  than  even  faith  itself?  ''  Now 
there  remain,"  he  says  (i  Cor.  xiii.  13),  "•  faith, 
hope,  charity,  these  three  ;  but  the  greater  of 
these  is  charity." 

It  evidently  is  not  almsgiving  simply  and  by 
itself,  which  is  what  we  generally  understand  in 
English  by  charity ;  for  he  says  in  this  chapter 
(v.  3)  :  *'  If  I  should  distribute  all  my  goods  to 
feed  the  poor  .  .  .  and  have  not  charity,  it 
profiteth  me  nothing." 

There  is  no  real  doubt  about  the  meaning  of 
this  word.  The  Latin  word  "caritas,"  from 
which  charity  comes,  means  simply  what  we 
may  call  for  the  moment  dearness ;  that  is  to 
say  the  virtue  by  which  God  and  our  neighbor 
become  dear  to  us  ;  or,  in  other  words,  the  love 
of  God  and  of  our  neighbor,  which  is  enjoined 
on  us  by  Christ  Himself  as  the  sum  and  sub- 
stance of  the  whole  law.  We  read  (lyuke  x. 
27)  that  the  young  man  in  answer  to  Christ's 
question,     "What    is    written    in    the    law?" 


Purgatory,  117 


answered,  *'  Thou  slialt  love  the  Lord  thy  God 
with  thy  whole  heart,  and  with  thy  w^hole  soul, 
and  with  all  thy  strength,  and  with  all  thy 
mind,  and  thy  neighbor  as  thyself";  and  we 
read  immediately  afterward  that  Christ  told  him 
he  had  answered  right. 

Faith,  then,  without  charity,  or  the  love  of 
God,  from  which  the  love  of  our  neighbor 
necessarily  folloWvS — for  St.  John  says  (I.  iv. 
20)  :  "If  any  man  say,  I  love  God,  and  hatetli 
his  brother,  he  is  a  liar" — is,  according  to 
the  plain  teaching  of  St.  Paul  as  given  above, 
unprofitable,  or  insufficient  for  salvation.  The 
same  doctrine  is  taught  most  clearly  by  St. 
James  (ii.  17)  :  "So  faith  also,  if  it  have  not 
w^orks,  is  dead  in  itself"  ;  or  as  the  Protestant 
version  has  it,  *'  Even  so  faith,  if  it  hath  not 
works,  is  dead,  being  alone."  No  wonder  that 
lyUther  objected  to  this  epistle  of  St.  James, 
and  called  it  an  "epistle  of  straw";  but  St. 
Paul,  you  see,  teaches  just  the  same  thing. 
St.  James,  however,  develops  it  more  fully 
(ii.   14-26). 

It  is,  then,  most  certain  that  faith  alone  will 
not  save  us  ;  we  must  also  have  the  love  of  God, 
and  this  love  of  God,  unless  it  show  itself  by 
good  works,  is  false.  St.  John  says  (I.  iii. 
16-18,  and  I  quote  your  own  version)  :  "Here- 
by perceive  we  the  love  of  God,  because  he  laid 
down  his  life  for  us  ;   and  we  ought  to  lay  down 


1 1 8  Purgatory, 


our  lives  for  the  brethren.  But  whoso  hath  this 
world's  good,  and  seeth  his  brother  have  need, 
and  shutteth  up  his  Ijowels  of  compassion  from 
him,  how  dwelleth  the  love  of  God  in  him  ?  My 
little  children,  let  us  not  love  in  word,  neither 
in  tongue  ;  but  in  deed  and  in  truth." 

Now,  the  question  arises :  Are  these  good 
works  which  must  necessarily  show  themselves 
in  our  lives,  if  we  have  the  love  of  God  in  us 
which  is  needed  for  salvation,  of  any  use  to  us? 
Is  the  Christian  who  abounds  in  them  any  more 
pleasing  to  God  than  he  who  has  only  a  few? 

It  would  seem  that  there  can  be  only  one 
answer  to  this.  If  our  love  for  God  pleases 
Him,  and  is  needed  that  we  may  see  His  face  in 
heaven,  the  more  of  it  we  have  the  more  we 
shall  please  Him  ;  and  each  good  work  that  we 
do  under  the  influence  of  it  will  please  Him  ; 
and  will  obtain  for  itself  a  special  reward.  He 
Himself  teaches  this  most  clearly  :  '  *  Whoso- 
ever shall  give  to  drink  to  one  of  these  little 
ones  a  cup  of  cold  water  only  in  the  name  of  a 
disciple,  amen  I  say  to  you,  he  »shall  not  lose  his 
reward." 

After  this,  it  hardly  seems  necessary  to  mul- 
tiply texts.  All'  our  good  works  done  with 
faith  and  the  love  of  God,  are  each  and  individ- 
ually to  receive  a  reward  from  Him ;  and  it  is 
perfectly  well  understood  that  our  claim  to  this 
reward  rests  primarily  on  the  merits  of  Christ. 


Purgatory,  1 1 9 


But  now  still  another  question  comes,  which  is 
the  real  one  with  which  we  are  specially  con- 
cerned just  now.  And  that  is,  do  our  good 
works,  besides  receiving  a  reward  in  heaven, 
and  perhaps  even  also  here,  avail  in  any  way  to 
undo  the  effect  of  our  sins?  Do  they  offer,  in 
other  words,  any  satisfaction  for  them? 

Of  course  it  is  plain  from  what  I  have  said 
that  they  cannot  thus  avail,  according  to  our 
doctrine,  in  themselves,  except  so  far  as  they 
may  incline  God,  and  indeed  do  certainly 
incline  Him,  to  bring  us  to  Christ  by  faith,  so 
that  His  Precious  Blood,  shed  on  the  cross, 
may  wash  our  souls  from  original  and  actual 
sin,  and  implant  at  the  same  time  in  our  hearts 
a  supernatural  love  of  Him,  founded  on  this 
faith.  Thus  we  read  (Acts  x.  30-32)  "Corne- 
lius said  :  Four  days  ago,  unto  this  hour,  I 
was  praying  in  my  house,  at  the  ninth  hour,  and 
behold  a  man  stood  before  me  in  white  apparel, 
and  said  :  '  Cornelius,  thy  prayer  is  heard,  and 
thy  alms  are  had  in  remembrance,  in  the  sight 
of  God.  Send  therefore  to  Joppa,  and  call 
hither  Simon,  who  is  surnamed  Peter.'  "  And 
Peter  coming,  instructed  Cornelius  in  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  and  baptized  him. 

But  do  our  good  works  afterward,  when  we 
are  united  with  Christ,  help  in  any  way,  or  join 
in  with  His  in  satisfying  for  our  sin  ?  Now  we 
get  at  the  real  point. 


120  Purgatory, 


I  would  ask  you  to  turn  to  St.  Paul's  epistle 
to  the  Colossians.  In  the  first  chapter  (v.  24) , 
you  will  find,  in  your  own  version,  the  Apostle 
saying  of  himself :  "  I,  Paul,  .  .  .  who  now 
rejoice  in  my  sufferings  for  you,  and  fill  up 
what  is  behind  of  the  afilictions  of  Christ  in  my 
flesh  for  His  body's  sake,  which  is  the  Church." 

Now,  was  not  this  great  presumption  for  St. 
Paul  to  undertake  to  fill  up  what  was  behind 
(or  wanting,  as  the  more  natural  translation  is) 
of  the  afflictions  or  sufferings  of  Christ  ?  I  do 
not  vSee  how  any  Bible  Christian  can  think  so. 
But  doeo  not  it  imply  that  Christ's  redemption 
was  in  some  way  inadequate  ?  No,  not  at  all, 
according  to  our  doctrine  on  the  subject. 

And  why  not  ?  Because  we  hold  that  it  is 
Christ's  merits  and  sufferings  only  which  can 
give  any  certain  value  to  the  works  of  St.  Paul 
or  of  any  one  else.  It  is  Christ's  Death  and 
Passion  which  runs  through  everything  ;  He  re- 
deems us  from  our  sins,  He  pays  the  penalty  of 
them  ;  but  He  also  sets  the  seal  of  His  Passion 
and  Death  on  our  little  efforts,  made  in  union 
with  Him,  by  His  grace,  and  by  souls  which 
believe  in  Him  and  accept  His  salvation.  And 
why  not  in  the  way  of  satisfying  for  sin,  as  well 
as  in  that  of  obtaining  an  increased  heavenly 
reward  ? 

You  will  say  because  Christ's  redemption  or 
satisfaction  was  in  itself  vSo  full  and  complete 


Purgatory,  12 1 


that  nothing  more  remains  to  be  done  in  that 
way.  But  if  so,  what  is  this  that  St.  Paul 
speaks  of  that  is  ' '  behind  ' '  or  wanting  in  it  ? 

It  is  just  this.  Christ's  salvation  is  free, 
yes ;  to  obtain  that,  we  have  only  to  accept  it, 
accompanying,  of  course,  our  acceptance  with 
true  repentance,  and  love  for  Him  who  has 
given  it.  But  salvation  is  not  all.  If  it  were, 
we  should,  when  our  sins  are  forgiven,  be  free 
from  even  the  natural  consequences  which  they 
have  entailed.  But  it  is  evident  that  we  are 
not.  The  mental  and  bodily  weakness,  disease, 
or  suffering  which  comes  from  sin  still  remains, 
as  we  know  for  a  fact,  unless  it  is  removed  by 
some  special  miracle.  We  are  often  also  amen- 
able to  the  law  of  man  for  it ;  and  this  law  of 
man  is  sanctioned  by  the  law  of  God.  All  that 
is  absolutely  promised  us  by  salvation  is  that  if 
we  persevere  in  the  love  of  God,  we  shall  ulti- 
mately see  Him  and  be  with  Him  in  heaven  for 
ever.  But  it  does  not  follow  that  we  may  not 
still  have  to  suffer  for  our  sins  on  the  way. 
That  is  clear  from  all  human  experience. 

Now,  what  we  Catholics  hold  is  simply  this  : 
that  as  a  man  may  b}'-  natural  means,  by  sub- 
jecting himself,  for  instance,  to  a  painful  bodily 
discipline  or  treatment,  remove  or  avoid  the 
natural  consequences  which  his  sins  have  natu- 
rally caused,  so  he  may  by  supernatural  means, 
that  is,  by  the  merits  of  Christ  still  lying  in  store 


122  Purgatory, 


for  him,  avoid  a  remaining  temporal  penalty  in 
the  supernatural  order  which  is  still  due  even 
after  eternal  salvation  has  been  given  him. 
This  salvation,  due  to  Christ's  merits,  has  been 
given  him  with  but  little  trouble  on  his  part ;  it 
has  been  brought,  as  it  were,  to  his  door.  The 
remainder  is  also  waiting  for  him,  but  he  has  to 
take  some  trouble  to  get  it ;  to  travel  a  little 
distance,  as  we  may  say  ;  to  use  some  exertion. 
He  has  to  fill  up,  not  what  is  absolutely  wanting 
in  Christ's  sufferings,  but  what  is  wanting  to 
him  ;  what  he  has  not  yet  laid  hold  of ;  and  this 
he  has  to  do  with  some  effort  and  some  pain. 

Now,  this  doctrine  of  a  remaining  temporal 
penalty  for  sin  is  in  complete  accordance  with 
the  idea  of  forgiveness  ;  it  does  not  contradict  it 
in  any  way.  A  father  forgives  his  son  a  fault, 
but  still  he  requires  him  to  make  some  amends 
for  the  fault ;  it  is  better,  even  for  the  son's  own 
sake,  that  he  should  do  so. 

And  it  is  also  in  accordance  with  what  the 
Bible  tells  us  about  God's  own  dealings.  We 
read  in  the  Old  Testament  of  King  David 
(II.  Samuel  xii.  13)  :  *'  Nathan  said  to  David  : 
The  Lord  also  hath  taken  away  thy  sin ;  thou 
shalt  not  die.  Nevertheless  because  thou  havSt 
given  occasion  to  the  enemies  of  the  Lord  to 
blaspheme,  for  this  thing  the  child  that  is  born 
to  thee  shall  surely  die." 

Again   we  read  in  the   same    book    (chapter 


Purgatory,  1 23 

xxiv.)  that  David  offended  God  by  pride  in 
numbering  the  people.  He  acknowledged  and 
bewailed  his  fault,  but  was  punished  for  it,  by  a 
plague  cutting  off  seventy  thousand  of  those  he 
had  numbered.  Afterward  he  was  told  to  build 
an  altar  to  the  I^ord ;  and  he  did  so,  and  offered 
on  it  holocausts  and  peace-offerings  ;  and  (v.  25) 
**The  plague  was  stayed  from  Israel."  Here 
we  have  not  only  the  temporal  punishment  ap- 
pointed by  God  for  sin,  but  also  the  removal  of 
it  by  the  substitution  in  its  place  of  prayers  and 
good  works. 

It  is  plain,  then,  is  it  not,  that  David  by  his 
holocausts  and  offerings,  satisfied  for  his  sin  as 
far  as  this  temporal  penalty  was  concerned  ?  but 
surely  he  had  no  advantage  that  we  also  have 
not.  He  was  forgiven  his  sin,  and  the  temporal 
penalty  was  remitted,  just  in  the  same  way  as  it 
is  with  us  now ;  both  remissions  were  in  view 
not  merely  of  David's  acts,  but  of  Christ's 
merits.  The  case  then  with  David  was  just  the 
same  as  it  is  with  us  now.  There  is  no  differ- 
ence between  his  time  and  ours,  except  that  the 
real  expiation  had  not  then  been  made  ;  but 
there  was  only  one  real  expiation  for  sin,  then 
as  now ;  and  now,  as  well  as  then,  our  own 
acts,  poor  and  miserable  as  they  are,  can  be, 
and  are,  sanctified  by  this  one  great  Sacrifice 
which,  in  the  fulness  of  time,  God  Himself 
offered  for  us. 


124  Purgatory, 


This,  then,  is  what  Catholics  mean  by  satis- 
faction. And  notice,  it  must  be  made,  it  can 
only  be  made,  by  a  soul  which  has  been  for- 
given, and  which  now  loves  God ;  notice  also 
that  it  has  no  efficacy  whatever  except  so  far  as 
it  rests  on  the  sacrifice  of  Christ. 

Now,  almost  all  Christians  who  have  attained 
adult  years,  even  if  thoroughly  repentant  for 
sin,  and  in  the  love  of  God,  probably  owe  a 
considerable  temporal  penalty  for  their  past  sins. 
They  will  have  to  suffer  something  for  tlieiii 
before  they  can  see  God's  Face  in  heaven. 
Something  they  could  do  to  avert  this — they 
could  substitute  something  for  it,  just  as  David 
did;  but  do  they  ?  Not  very  much,  as  a  rule, 
beyond  bearing  with  patience  the  sufferings  of 
this  life  which  God  may  send  them.  These 
sufferings,  and  their  patience,  no  doubt  count 
for  a  good  deal ;  but  it  would  appear  that  those 
who  have  sinned  a  good  deal  do  not  have  more 
suffering,  probably  less  on  the  whole  than  those 
who  have  led  good  and  holy  lives.  So  it  would 
seem  that  satisfaction  in  their  case  is  mostly 
postponed  till  after  death. 

So  purgatory  is  not  only  a  state,  as  explained 
in  the  beginning,  of  punishment  for  venial  sin, 
that  is,  for  those  lesser  sins  which  do  not  make 
us  lose  the  love  of  God ;  but  also  it  is  in  purga- 
tory that  the  temporal  penalty  due  to  mortal  or 
grievous   sin,  even  when  it   is  repented  of,  is 


Purgatory,  125 


paid,  unless  satisfaction  has  been  made  for  it  in 
this  life. 

And  we  believe  that  most  Christians  who  die 
in  the  love  of  God  go  to  purgatory  for  a  time, 
for  few  repent  or  expiate  their  venial  sins  or 
their  mortal  ones  as  they  should,  in  this  life  ; 
but  we  do  not  believe  that  any  one,  however 
firmly  he  may  hold  the  Catholic  faith,  goes  to 
purgatory  if  he  dies  unrepentant  of  mortal  sin. 
No,  such  an  one  is  lost  for  ever ;  there  is  no 
purgatory  for  him. 

But  of  course  we  do  not  know,  individually, 
who  goes  there  and  who  does  not.  Those  who 
seem  the  holiest  and  fit  for  heaven  at  once,  may 
still  in  the  sight  of  God  need  further  purifying 
and  further  satisfaction  ;  and  those  who  seem  to 
die  unrepentant  may  really  turn  to  God  at  the 
last.  So  we  presume  all  Catholics  who  die  to 
be  in  purgatory;  though  it  may  often  seem 
more  probable  for  a  particular  soul  that  it  is  in 
heaven  or  in  hell. 

Now,  is  there  anything  that  we  believe  can  be 
done  for  them,  if  they  are  in  purgatory  ?  Cer- 
tainly, if  we  admit  that  there  is  a  purgatory, 
there  seems  to  be  no  reason  why  w^e  may  not 
pray  for  the  souls  there  in  general,  or  for  any 
particular  soul  which  may  be  there  ;  for  we  may 
always  pray  for  anything  which  may  be  pleas- 
ing to  God,  and  we  know  that  the  deliverance 
of  a  soul  from  purgatory  is  pleasing  to  God,  for 


1 26  Purgatory, 

it  is  a  thing  which  He  certainly  intends  to  ac- 
complish. And  charity  also  must  induce  us  to 
pray,  especially  for  those  souls  most  near  and 
dear  to  us. 

Furthermore,  St.  Paul  tells  us  (Col.  v.  24,  as 
quoted)  that  he  fills  up  ' '  what  is  behind  of  the 
sufferings  of  Christ  ...  for  His  body's 
sake,  which  is  the  Church."  St.  Paul,  then, 
suffered  for  the  Church;  for  his  brethren  in 
Christ,  as  well  as  on  account  of  any  sins  of  his 
own.  We  hold  then,  in  accordance  with  his 
teaching,  that  we  may  also  do  something  in  this 
way  ;  offering  up  our  own  sufferings,  either  un- 
avoidable or  voluntary,  for  our  suffering 
brethren. 

Also  David  offered,  as  we  have  seen,  sacri- 
fices for  his  sins  to  satisfy  for  their  temporal 
punishment;  and  his  sacrifices  were  accepted. 
Now,  if  David's  sacrifices,  which  were  but  the 
shadow  or  presage  of  the  true  sacrifice  of 
Christ,  were  accepted,  have  we  not  something 
more  acceptable  now ;  namely,  the  offering  of 
that  one  true  Sacrifice,  in  the  form  of  bread  and 
wine,  under  which  the  true  Lamb  of  God  once 
slain  is  truly  present,  though  concealed  ? 
Even  if  one  does  not  grant  what  we  believe 
about  the  Mass,  certainly  it  is  not  inferior  to 
David's  holocausts.  Why  then,  following 
David  and  St.  Paul,  should  we  not  offer  Mass 
for  the  souls  of  the  dead? 


Purgatory,  127 

This,  then,  is  what  priests  do ;  but  they  do 
not  extort  money  from  the  faithful  for  this  pur- 
pose. If  any  one  wishes  a  Mass  for  their 
deceased  friends,  it  is  no  more  than  right  that 
they  should  contribute  according  to  their  means 
to  the  priest's  support ;  for,  as  a  priest  simply, 
he  has  no  other  means  of  support.  The  usual 
offering  in  this  country  is  one  dollar  ;  certainly 
a  priest  cannot  become  very  wealthy  on  that,  as 
he  can  say  Mass  but  once  a  day.  But  priests 
are  very  careful  not  to  force  people  to  pay 
money,  or  to  insist  on  it  except  where  it  is  due 
for  expenses  which  have  to  be  incurred  for  the 
people's  sake,  such  as  those  for  churches  or 
schools.  Priests  are  not  millionaires ;  they 
simply  cannot  provide  these  things,  where  the 
Church  is  not  supported  by  the  state,  unless 
the  people  pay  for  them. 

Now,  I  think  we  have  pretty  well  gone  over 
this  doctrine  of  purgatory,  and  of  the  Catholic 
practice  with  regard  to  it.  But  you  may  proba- 
bly ask  what  evidence  we  have  that  there  is 
any  purgatory ;  why  do  we  make  it  a  part  of  our 
faith  ? 

To  this  I  would  answer  that  we  make  it  a 
matter  of  faith  because,  if  it  is  clear  with  re- 
gard to  any  doctrine  that  it  always  has  been 
believed  in  the  Church,  it  is  with  regard  to  this. 
Faith  expresses  itself  in  practice  ;  and  we  find 
the  practice  of  praying  for  the  dead  reaching 


128  Purgatory. 


not  only  into  the  early  ages  of  Christianity,  but 
even  into  those  of  the  Old  Testament.  As  a 
matter  of  history,  at  least,  this  is  made  clear 
from  the  second  book  of  the  Machabees,  in 
which  we  read  of  Judas  Machabeus  that, 
**  making  a  gathering,  he  sent  twelve  thousand 
drachms  of  silver  to  Jerusalem  for  sacrifice  to 
be  offered  for  the  sins  of  the  dead,  thinking 
well  and  religiously  concerning  the  resurrec- 
tion. (For  if  he  had  not  hoped  that  they  that 
were  slain  should  rise  again,  it  would  have 
seemed  superfluous  and  vain  to  pray  for  the 
dead;)  and  because  he  considered  that  they 
who  had  fallen  asleep  with  godliness,  had  great 
grace  laid  up  for  them.  It  is  therefore  a  holy 
and  wholesome  thought  to  pray  for  the  dead, 
that  they  may  be  loosed  from  sins." 

I  say  as  a  matter  of  history,  at  least;  for 
though  Protestants  do  not  regard  the  books  of 
the  Machabees  as  inspired,  they  cannot  deny 
that  these  books  were  read  reverently  by  the 
Jews,  and  no  protest  made  against  this  doctrine 
by  those  who  believed  in  the  resurrection.  It 
may  be  added  that  the  Jews  at  the  present  day 
pray  for  the  dead,  as  their  fathers  did  before  them. 

And  we  do  not  find  that  any  protest  was 
made  against  prayers  for  the  dead  till  the 
peculiar  Protestant  doctrine  of  justification  by 
faith  alone  was  introduced  at  the  time  of  the 
Reformation.      This  doctrine,   of  course,  shuts 


Purgatory,  129 


out  the  idea  of  such  prayers,  for  it  requires  no 
real  purity  of  soul  as  a  condition  for  entrance 
into  heaven  ;    it  only  requires  that  its  unclean- 

ness  should  be  covered  by  the  mantle  of  Christ's 

/ 

righteousness  accepted  by  faith;  and  hence,  of 
course,  according  to  it,  there  is  no  difference  in 
fitness  for  heaven  between  the  soul  of  the  most 
perfect  follower  of  Christ  and  that  of  a  life-long 
sinner,  if  only  both  have  accepted  Him  as  their 
Saviour. 

But  we  have  quite  an  explicit  teaching  or  ex- 
planation of  the  doctrine  of  purgatory  in  the 
writings  of  St.  Paul  in  the  New  Testament. 
It  is  very  hard  to  conceive  any  other  meaning 
for  the  passage.  It  is  found  in  the  first  epistle 
of  the  Apostle  to  the  Corinthians,  iii.  11-15; 
and  is  as  follows  :  * '  For  other  foundation  no 
man  can  lay,  but  that  which  is  laid ;  which 
is  Christ  Je:sus.  Now,  if  any  man  build 
upon  this  foundation  gold,  silver,  precious 
stones,  wood,  hay,  vStubble;  every  man's  work 
shall  be  manifest;  for  the  day  of  the  Lord 
shall  declare  it,  because  it  shall  be  revealed  in 
fire ;  and  the  fire  shall  try  every  man's  work, 
of  what  sort  it  is.  If  any  man's  work  abide, 
which  he  hath  built  thereupon,  he  shall  receive 
a  reward.  If  any  man's  work  burn,  he  shall 
Suffer  loss ;  but  he  himself  shall  be  saved,  yet 
so  as  by  fire." 

This  passage  seems  to  plainly  teach  that  the 


130  Purgatory, 


works  of  Christians  differ  in  their  acceptable- 
ness  with  God  ;  that  their  good  works,  done  to 
please  God,  shall  not  be  touched  by  this  fire, 
but  their  works  which  are  more  or  less  spoiled 
by  sin  must  be  purified  if  not  altogether  con- 
sumed by  it,  the  soul  of  the  sinner  nevertheless 
being  saved.  What  is  this  fire  which  burns 
some  works  of  Christians,  but  not  others,  the 
soul  still  being  saved,  if  not  that  of  purgatory  ? 

But  do  not  for  a  moment  imagine  that  the 
Church  teaches,  or  that  any  Catholic  imagines, 
that  unrepented  mortal  sin  can  be  burnt  out  in 
this  way.  By  no  means ;  as  has  been  said, 
there  is  no  salvation  for  any  one  dying  with 
such  sin  on  his  head. 

As  to  the  suffering  in  purgatory,  the  Church 
has  never  defined  precisely  what  it  is  ;  and  it  is 
probable  that  in  this  life  we  cannot  fully  under- 
stand it.  The  soul  in  purgatory  is  separated 
from  the  body  by  death,  and  not  yet  reunited 
with  it  by  the  resurrection,  so  that  bodily  pains, 
as  we  understand  them,  seem  impossible. 
Nevertheless,  all  suffering  really  is  in  the  soul ; 
and  it  is  possible  that  the  disembodied  soul 
may  suffer  pains  similar  to  that  which  in  this 
life  come  to  it  through  the  body.  But  the  prin- 
cipal suffering  would  seem  to  be  that  which 
comes  from  the  temporary  separation  of  the  soul 
from  God,  whom  it  desires  and  longs  to  be 
united  with  most  ardently. 


Purgatory.  131 


Instinctively,  I  think,  almost  every  one 
recognizes  or  wishes  to  recognize  the  truth  of 
the  Catholic  faith  in  this  respect.  Of  course 
when  one  dear  to  us  dies  in  the  faith  of  Christ 
after  a  saintly,  or  even  an  ordinarily  good  life, 
there  is  not  much  difficulty  in  representing 
them  to  ourselves  as  being  now  in  heaven  ;  but 
when  the  life  of  such  an  one  has  been  quite 
worldly  and  imperfect,  we  all  feel  that  he  is 
hardly  fit  for  heaven,  and  yet  we  cannot  bring 
ourselves  really  to  believe  that  his  portion  is 
with  the  lost.  We  feel  that  God  will  yet  be 
merciful  to  him,  and  admit  him  to  the  heaven 
for  which  he  has  hoped,  and  to  which,  though 
weakly  and  imperfectly,  and  with  many  falls  by 
the  way,  he  has  endeavored  to  direct  his  steps. 
And  we  want,  if  we  love  such  an  one,  to  do 
something  to  help  him,  and  to  hasten  the  hour 
of  his  arrival  at  that  eternal  home.  And  even 
though  we  may  have  been  taught  that  prayers 
for  the  dead  are  useless,  they  will  rise  unbidden 
to  our  lips.  It  is  human  nature's  tribute  to  the 
Catholic  teaching,  which  is  also  that  of  the 
Greek  Church,  and  of  all  the  churches  of  the 
East  as  well ;  and  is  not  only  consoling  to  our 
feelings  and  hopes,  but  also  in  accordance  with 
reason  and  common  sense. 


CHAPTER  XII. 

THK  RKSURRKCTION  OF  THK  DKAD  ;    KVKRIvAST- 
ING  IvIFK. 

I  HAVE  said  that  purgatory,  as  understood 
and  believed  b}^  Catholics,  is  a  temporary 
state ;  with  regard  to  its  duration  in  any  par- 
ticular case,  of  course  we  can  know  nothing, 
unless  by  some  special  revelation.  However,  it 
is  evident  that  it  cannot  extend  after  what  is 
commonly  known  as  the  day  of  judgment. 

With  regard  to  this  day  of  judgment  it  is  a 
matter  of  faith  that  there  will  be  such  a  day,  in 
which  all  mankind  will  be  judged  together,  and 
the  place  or  state  of  every  human  being  de- 
finitely avSsigned  for  all  eternity.  No  doctrine 
is  more  plainly  taught  in  Holy  Scripture  than 
this. 

We  have  in  the  book  of  Daniel  (xii.  2)  the 
following  words:  "And  many  of  those  that 
sleep  in  the  dust  of  the  earth,  shall  awake: 
some  unto  life  everlasting,  and  others  unto  re- 
proach, to  see  it  always." 

From  this,  as  it  stands  in  English,  we  should 
plainly  gather  that  only  some  of  the  dead  were 
to  arise  to  judgment ;  and  it  is  a  good  instance  of 
the   impossibility   of    arriving   at   certain   con- 


The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life,      133 

elusions  of  faith  by  simply  taking  the  translated 
Bible  as  we  have  it  in  our  vernacular,  and  the 
futility  of  attempting  to  do  so.  Taking  this  as 
we  should  naturally  understand  it,  it  is  in  con- 
tradiction to  the  words  of  our  lyord  himself 
(John  V.  28-29):  ""  Wonder  not  at  this,  for  the 
hour  cometh,  wherein  all  that  are  in  the  graves 
shall  hear  the  voice  of  the  Son  of  God.  And 
they  that  have  done  good  things,  shall  come 
forth  unto  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  but  they  that 
have  done  evil,  unto  the  resurrection  of  judg- 
ment." For  you  notice  that  Daniel  says, 
*'  many  of  those,"  whereas  Christ  says  ''  all." 

It  is  plain  that  unless  Daniel  is  to  contradict 
our  lyOrd  Himself,  we  must  understand  by  the 
words  "many"  in  his  text,  that  the  number 
will  be  great ;  and  we  must  look  at  the  idiom 
of  the  language  in  which  his  words  were  ori- 
ginally written.  Hence  the  need  of  some  in- 
terpreters of  the  Bible  must,  it  seems  to  me,  be 
quite  clear,  unless  every  Christian  is  expect- 
ed to  be  a  learned  man  and  a  profound  stu- 
dent. 

We  also  find  in  St.  Matthew's  gospel  (xxv. 
31-46)  a  very  explicit  and  full  description  of 
the  day  of  judgment,  given  by  Christ  Himself: 
"  And  when  the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  His 
Majesty,  and  all  the  angels  with  Him,  then 
shall  He  sit  upon  the  seat  of  His  Majesty  ;  and 
all  nations  shall   be    gathered   together   before 


134      The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life, 

Him,  and  He  shall  separate  them  one  from  ano- 
ther, as  the  shepherd  separateth  the  sheep  from 
the  goats"    (verses  31,  32). 

St.  Peter  is  very  full  also  in  his  description  of 
the  day  of  judgment ;  telling  us  distinctly  that 
the  world  shall-  at  that  time  be  destroyed  by 
fire.  He  says  (I.  Pet.  iii.  10):  ''The  day  of 
the  Lord  shall  come  as  a  thief,  in  which  the 
heavens  shall  pass  away  with  great  violence, 
and  the  elements  shall  be  melted  with  heat,  and 
the  earth  and  the  works  which  are  in  it  shall  be 
burnt   up." 

Science,  I  need  hardly  say,  cannot  contradict 
this  prophecy  ;  for  no  one  who  believes  in  God 
can  deny  His  power  to  dispose  of  what  He  has 
made,  by  special  exertions  of  His  power  ;  but 
it  may  be  added  that  such  a  destruction  of  the 
earth  may  easily  come  from  causes  now  in 
operation.  To  produce  such  an  effect,  a  col- 
lision of  some  large  external  body  with  the 
earth  or  the  sun,  or  even  a  serious  derangement 
of  the  orbit  of  the  earth  by  the  influence  of  such 
a  body,  would  be  amply  sufficient. 

The  doctrine  of  the  general  judgment  is 
taught  clearly  in  other  parts  of  Scripture,  but  it 
is  hardly  necessary  to  dwell  longer  on  the  mat- 
ter. It  is  generally  accepted  by  Christians  who 
believe  in  revelation,  and  is  embodied  in  what 
is  called  the  Apostles'  Creed,  which  Christians 
generally  recite.     ' '  From  thence  ' '  (that  is,  from 


The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life,      135 

heaven)  *'he  shall  come  to  judge  the  living 
and  the    dead,"  are    the  words  of  this   creed. 

We  are  told,  as  has  been  seen,  that  at  the 
general  judgment  our  bodies  shall  rise  from  the 
graves  in  which  they  have  been  laid.  But  how 
about  those  w^hich  have  not  been  buried  ;  those 
which  have  been  cremated,  torn  and  devoured 
by  wild  beasts  or  cannibals? 

To  this  it  may  be  answered  that  it  is  not  nec- 
essary that  all  the  particles  actually  composing 
a  human  body  at  the  time  of  death  should  be 
reassembled  in  the  body  which  shall  rise  at  the 
last  day.  This  would  require  a  special  and 
miraculous  Divine  interposition  in  some  cases, 
as  in  that  of  a  cannibal  dying  shortly  after  he 
had  thoroughly  assimilated  some  portions  of 
another  human  body  with  his  own  ;  to  avoid 
the  difficulty,  it  would  be  necessary  that  his 
life  should  be  specially  preserved  against  the 
attacks  of  his  enemies  until  these  portions  had 
departed  from  his  body,  or  that  they  should  be 
prevented  from  assimilation,  or  removed  in 
some  miraculous  way. 

Also  in  the  case  of  a  good  and  holy  person 
dying,  as  may  well  be  the  case,  with  a  body 
wasted  or  corrupted  by  some  loathsome  and 
disfiguring  disease  ;  it  surely  would  not  be  that 
spoiled  body  with  which  that  person  would  rise, 
and  could  hardly  be  a  new  one  made  from  the 
identical  particles  of  which  that  was  composed 


1 36      The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life. 

And  indeed  the  Church  teaches  that  the 
glorified  bodies  of  the  saints  shall  not  have 
disfiguring  and  inglorious  marks  like  these, 
and  that  limbs  or  members  which  they  have 
lost  shall  be  restored  in  heaven ;  for  our  Lord 
can  hardly  have  meant  in  saying,  as  we  find 
His  words  recorded  in  Mark  ix.  42,  that  we 
should  actually  enter  "into  life,  maimed,"  or 
(v.  44),  ''lame,  into  life  everlasting,"  but 
rather  that  we  should  lose  our  hands  and  feet  in 
this  life  rather  than  forfeit  the  life  to  come  ;  for 
perfect  happiness  would  be  inconsistent  with 
these  blemishes  and  inconveniences.  Compare 
also  Matt.  v.  29,  30,  where  the  same  lesson  is 
taught  in  different  words.  These  defects  must 
then  be  made  up  from  material  not  belonging  to 
the  body  at  the  time  of  death ;  and  there  seems 
to  be  no  reason  at  all  why  this  material  should 
at  any  time  of  life  have  belonged  to  that  body, 
and  been  separated  from  it  in  the  constant 
changes  which  our  bodies  undergo  in  this  life. 

The  fact  is  that  a  precise  restoration  of  all  the 
particles  belonging  to  a  body  is  not  necessary  to 
constitute  identity.  When  the  change  goes  on 
gradually  we  call  a  body  the  same  though  all 
its  particles  may  be  replaced  in  course  of  time 
by  others,  as  in  the  case  of  our  bodies  during 
life.  And  a  considerable  change  may  even  be 
suddenly  made  without  affecting  identity.  No 
one  would  dream  that  our  bodies  lost  identity 


IJie  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life.      137 

by  having  a  tooth  pulled,  or  a  new  piece  of  skin 
grafted  on  in  place  of  what  had  been  destroyed. 

We  must  conclude,  then,  simply  that  at  the 
resurrection  the  body  will  be  what  we  should 
call  the  same  as  that  which  we  have  now,  but 
not  that  every  individual  particle  or  chemical 
atom  of  the  elements  of  which  it  is  composed, 
no  more  and  no  less,  shall  be  used  in  its  recon- 
struction. 

From  what  has  been  said  and  the  texts  which 
have  been  quoted,  it  is  plain  that  there  will  be 
two  distinct  classes  of  those  who  rise  at  the  last 
day.  Some  rise,  as  Daniel  tells  us,  to  life  ever- 
lasting, the  others  to  reproach  ;  or  as  our  Lord 
tells  us  more  distinctly,  they  that  have  done 
good,  to  the  resurrection  of  life  ;  they  that  have 
done  evil,  to  that  of  judgment ;  that  is,  for  the 
former  sin  and  death  are  blotted  out  and 
destroyed  for  ever ;  whereas  in  the  latter  sin 
remains,  to  be  judged  according  to  its  deserts, 
the  merits  of  the  death  of  Christ  not  having 
been  applied  to  atone  for  it. 

It  is  not,  however,  that  Christ  did  not  shed 
His  blood  for  all ;  the  Church  teaches  that  He 
did.  But  some  have  refused  to  avail  themselves 
of  His  sacrifice,  by  not  repenting  and  turning 
from  sin,  and  believing  and  trusting  in  their 
Saviour,  so  far  as  He  has  been  made  known  to 
them. 

It  is  impossible  for  us  to  decide  what  on  the 

.€^^: 

>  Of  rsM 


138      The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life, 

whole  will  be  the  resurrection  or  future  state  of 
those  who  have  had  no  opportunity  of  knowing 
anything  about  Christ  and  the  redemption 
which  He  has  offered.  But  we  do  know  that 
salvation  was  possible  before  this  redemption 
was  actually  accomplished,  or  the  way  of  it  dis- 
tinctly made  known ;  and  it  seems  certainly 
impossible  that  the  state  of  a  man  could  be 
changed  by  the  actual  accomplishment  of  the 
great  sacrifice  of  the  Cross,  if  the  conditions 
under  which  he  was  living  were  such  that  he 
could  not  possibly  hear  of  it,  or  that  in  fact  he 
had  not  the  slightest  information  with  regard  to 
it.  Therefore  it  seems  certain  that  by  means 
of  the  death  of  Christ  all  men  in  all  ages  have 
had,  and  that  all  now  living  have,  the  means 
of  salvation,  if  they  make  the  best  use  of  the 
light  and  the  grace  from  God  which  is  given  to 
them.  And  indeed  St.  Thomas  Aquinas,  than 
whom  there  is  no  higher  human  authority  in 
the  Church,  tells  us  that  God  would  send  an 
angel  specially  to  instruct  one  who  could  not 
obtain  what  instruction  was  necessary  in  any 
other  way. 

So  we  need  not  inquire  further  into  this 
matter ;  it  is  our  duty  to  bring  the  light  of  the 
gospel  to  those  who  do  not  have  it,  to  instruct 
them  in  the  Christian  faith,  and, persuade  them 
to  embrace  it ;  especially  as  without  the  strength 
which  it  gives  it  is  extremely  hard  even  to  keep 


The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life,     139 

the  law  which  is  manifest  to  all,  as  St.  Paul 
says  (Rom.  i.  19-20).  But  we  should  not  pass 
absolute  judgment  on  any  one,  and  especially 
not  on  those  to  whom  the  gospel  has  not  been 
preached.  St.  Paul  says  (I.  Cor.  v.  12,  13)  : 
''What  have  I  to  do  to  judge  them  that  are 
without  ?  .  .  .  For  them  that  are  without, 
God  will  judge.*' 

Those,  then,  who  by  faith  of  some  kind, 
and  by  a  life  corresponding  to  it,  have  pleased 
God,  shall  be  saved.  But  let  it  not  be  im- 
agined that  a  man  can.  therefore,  simply  rest 
content  with  the  knowledge  that  he  has,  or 
that  with  which  others  are  seemingly  satisfied. 
It  is  the  duty  of  every  one  to  know  God's  will 
and  God's  truth  according  to  the  means  offered 
to  him ;  not  to  rest  till  he  has  attained  w^hat 
knowledge  is  attainable  by  him  on  this,  the 
most  important  of  all  matters.  And  having  , 
attained  it,  he  must  regulate  his  life  according 
to  it ;  not  transgressing  the  known  law,  or  im- 
pugning the  known  truth ;  or  if  he  have  done 
so,  repenting  with  his  whole  heart.  One  mortal 
sin,  one  grievous  departure  from  what  con- 
science dictates,  takes  away  the  life  of  the  soul 
in  God,  and  brings  upon  it  eternal  condemna- 
tion. And  carelessness  or  indifference  as  to 
what  God  wills  us  to  believe  or  to  do  has  mani- 
festly the  same  effect. 

I^et   it   not,  then,  be   imagined   that  we   can 


1 40       The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life, 

adopt  the  shallow  and  deceitful  maxim,  that  it 
makes  no  difference  what  a  man  believes,  as 
long  as  his  life  is  right.  For  how  can  a  man's 
life  be  right  if  he  sins  against  God  by  disbelief 
in  what  He  teaches  or  reveals,  or  indifference 
as  to  whether  He  does  actually  teach  or 
reveal  a  particular  truth,  whether  that  truth 
concern  faith  or  morals?  This  maxim  simply 
takes  for  granted  that  every  one  naturally  and 
without  effort  knows  everything  about  his, 
duty;  that  every  one,  no  matter  what  his 
education  or  surroundings,  knows  what  it  has 
puzzled  the  greatest  human  intellects,  un- 
assisted by  revelation,  to  discover. 

But  to  resume  our  proper  subject.  Those 
who  are  saved  or  lost  are,  according  to  the  faith 
of  the  Church,  saved  or  lost  both  body  and 
soul  at  the  general  resurrection.  To  the  for- 
mer are  given  bodies  not  only  perfect  and  in- 
corruptible, but  also  endowed  with  other  pro- 
perties not  naturally  belonging  to  material 
substances ;  tlie  faculty  of  passing  over  great 
distances  with  ease  and  quickness,  and  of  pass- 
ing unobstructed  through  material  obstacles  ; 
as  was  the  case  with  the  risen  body  of  Christ, 
which,  as  we  read  (John  xx.  19),  presented 
itself  to  his  disciples  though  the  doors  were 
shut.  Also  the  bodies  of  the  saved  shall  be 
insensible  to  pain,  and  of  course  not  liable  to 
disease  or  weariness  ;  and  shall  be  perpetually 


The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life,     141 

young  and  strong,  and  receive  nothing  but 
comfort  and  enjoyment  from  any  circumstances 
in  which  they  may  be  placed. 

As  to  those  of  the  lost,  the  direct  opposite  is 
held.  The  results  and  consequences  of  sin  re- 
main in  them  ;  they  are  incorruptible  and  in- 
destructible, but  otherwise  they  have  no  super- 
natural qualities.  They  are  sensible  to  pain, 
and  undoubtedly  suffer  it  ;  just  what  this  pain 
is,  has  never  been  precisely  defined ;  the  com- 
mon opinion  has  always  been  that  it  was  to  a 
great  extent  actual  fire,  as  our  Lord  Himself 
uses  this  word  in  describing  it. 

Now  another  question  remains  to  be  con- 
sidered. What  is  the  state  of  the  souls  of  the 
lost,  from  the  time  of  death,- and  of  that  of  the 
saved  from  the  time  of  their  deliverance  from 
purgatory — if  that  purification  has  been  nec- 
essary for  them — to  the  time  of  the  resurrection  ? 

The  teaching  of  the  Church  on  this  point  is 
that  heaven  begins  for  the  saved,  and  hell  for 
the  lost,  before  the  resurrection ;  though  in  a 
limited  and  incomplete  sense  ;  and  yet  in  the 
most  important  respect,  for  the  principal  happi- 
ness of  heaven  is  in  the  union  of  the  soul  with 
God,  and  in  its  enjoyment  of  Him  by  what  is 
called  the  beatific  vision,  whereas  the  principal 
misery  of  hell  is  in  the  eternal  separation  of 
the  soul  from  God,  which  is  then  most  keenly 
felt,  the   vanity  and   insufficiency  of  the  false 


142      The  Resurrection  ;  Everlasting  Life, 

pleasures  sought  during  life  being  then  plainly 
seen.  And  as  it  is,  after  all,  in  the  soul  that 
all  real  pain  or  happiness  is  felt,  there  is  no 
reason  why  there  vShould  not  be  in  heaven  be- 
fore the  resurrection  something  equivalent  to 
bodily  enjoyment,  or  in  hell,  as  in  purgatory, 
to  bodily  pain. 

The  soul,  then,  is  believed  to  pass  to  what  is 
called  the  particular  judgment  (that  is,  the 
judgment  for  each  one  in  particular) ,  immedi- 
ately after  death  ;  and  its  eternal  state  is  then  de- 
termined, according  as  it  has  left  this  world  in 
union  with,  or  separation  from  God.  Most  of 
those  on  whom  a  favorable  sentence  is  pro- 
nounced, we  have  reason  to  believe,  remain  a 
while  in  purgatory  before  they  are  fit  to  enter  on 
the  joys  of  heaven  ;  and  they  themselves,  recog- 
nizing their  unfitness,  would  desire  nothing  else. 
The  rest  go  immediately  to  their  permanent 
state,  only  to  be  changed  at  the  last  day  by  the 
resurrection  and  resumption  of  the  body,  which 
shares  in  the  punishment  of  sin,  as  it  has  shared 
in  the  sin  itself. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 

THE   PRIMACY   OF   THE   ROMAN   PONTIFF, 

THE  next  article  of  the  profession  of  faith 
which  we  are  discussing  concerns  ' '  the 
primacy,  not  only  of  honor,  but  also  of  juris- 
diction, of  the  Roman  Pontiff."  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  say  that  by  the  Roman  Pontiff  is 
meant  the  Pope.  That  we  regard  him  as  the 
successor  of  St.  Peter,  and  St.  Peter  as  the 
Prince  or  head  of  the  apostles,  has  already  been 
stated.  By  his  being  the  Vicar  of  Jesus  Christ 
we  mean  that  he  is  the  representative  of  Christ 
as  the  head  of  the  Church,  and  under  Christ, 
its  visible  head  and  ruler. 

Now,  what  is  meant  by  the  primacy,  not  only 
of  honor,  but  also  oi  ju7^isdiction^  of  the  Pope? 

Primacy  means  the  first  or  most  distinguished 
place.  By  a  primacy  of  honor  would  be  meant 
the  being  entitled  above  others  to  certain  out- 
ward signs  of  respect,  the  having  what  is  called 
the  precedence  over  others  in  public  assemblies, 
processions,  and  the  like.  Thus  in  England, 
for  example,  the  Prince  of  Wales  has  a  primacy 
of  honor,  next  after  the  Queen ;  after  her,  the 
greatest  outward  respect  would  be  shown  to 
him.     But  he  has,  as  long  as  he  remains  merely 

143 


144      ^^^  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff. 

Prince  of  Wales,  no  jurisdiction  whatever  in 
the  kingdom.  He  does  not  sit  in  Parliament, 
and  has  no  voice  in  the  making  of  the  laws; 
and  his  approval  of  them  is  not  required. 

By  jurisdiction  is  meant  just  this,  the  power 
of  making  laws,  or  in  some  way  governing 
others  legally.  So  in  this  respect,  you  see,  a 
member  of  the  House  of  Commons  in  England 
has  jurisdiction,  which  the  Prince  of  Wales  has 
not.  The  primacy  of  jurisdiction  would  belong 
to  him  who  had  the  greatest  power  of  law- 
making or  of  government. 

When  we  say,  then,  that  in  the  Catholic 
Church  the  Pope  has  not  only  the  primacy 
of  honor,  but  also  of  jurisdiction,  we4nean  that 
not  only  is  the  Pope  entitled  to  the  greatest  out- 
ward marks  of  respect,  that  to  him,  for  ex- 
ample, would  belong  by  right  the  first  place  of 
honor  in  all  assemblies  or  councils  of  bishops 
and  prelates,  but  also  that  he  has  a  higher  gov- 
erning power  in  the  Church  than  any  of  them. 

In  fact  the  Catholic  doctrine  is  that  the  Pope 
has  supreme  jurisdiction  in  the  Church;  that 
there  is  no  jurisdiction  or  government  in  it 
which  is  not  liable  to  control  by  him.  He  has 
the  power  of  making  laws  for  the  whole 
Church,  or  of  repealing  laws  which  have  been 
made ;  being  however,  of  course,  limited  in 
this,  like  other  legislators,  by  the  condition  that 
his  laws  must  be  useful,  just,  and  reasonable, 


The  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.       145 

and  not  in  conflict  with  the  divine  law.  In 
case  of  doubt  on  any  of  those  points,  however, 
the  presumption,  as  with  other  legislators,  is  in 
his  favor. 

Bishops  have,  however,  a  similar  law-making 
power  in  their  own  dioceses,  and  their  laws  do 
not  require  the  Pope's  approval  that  they  may 
go  into  effect ;  but  the  Pope  has  the  right  and 
the  power  to  modify  or  change  the  laws  of 
bishops,  and  to  oversee  and  control  their  action 
as  he  may  deem  expedient.  As  a  rule,  how- 
ever, he  does  not  exercise  this  power  or  inter- 
fere with  their  legislation. 

It  would  be  beyond  the  scope  of  a  work  like 
the  present  one  to  bring  up  the  proofs  that  the 
Pope  is  really  entitled  to  this  supreme  jurisdic- 
tion. Whole  books  have  been  written  on  the 
subject,  and  can  be  consulted  by  any  one  so 
inclined.  The  principal  texts  of  Holy  Scrip- 
ture on  which  this  doctrine  is  based  have  been 
given  in  the  chapter  on  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope ;  I  would  merely  remark  here  that  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  why  our  Lord,  after  twice 
saying,  ''feed  my  lambs,"  should  say  the  third 
time,  ''feed  my  sheep,"  unless  the  word 
' '  sheep ' '  meant  something  different  from  the 
word  "lambs."  The  sheep  are  understood  by 
Catholics  to  be  the  prelates  of  the  Church,  the 
lambs  the  laity. 

But  the  principal  argument  in  its  favor  is  to 


146      The  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff » 

be  derived  from  the  actual  history  of  the 
Church,  and  from  the  impossibility  of  such  an 
enormous  usurpation  of  power  as  this  would  be, 
without  the  force  of  arms  to  carry  it  out. 

The  supreme  power  of  the  Pope  is  also  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  requirements  of  common 
sense.  For  the  Church,  to  maintain  its  posi- 
tion in  the  world,  and  to  discharge  effectively 
the  office  committed  to  it  by  Christ,  must  neces- 
sarily have  some  general  government ;  and  that 
government  cannot  well  be  by  means  of  a  con- 
gress or  parliament,  on  account  of  the  difficulty 
of  calling  such  a  body  together  in  an  institu- 
tion which  is  world-wide  ;  the  monarchical  form 
seems  then  necessary  for  it ;  and  the  dangers  of 
the  extraordinary  powers  residing  in  its  head 
are  well  compensated,  to  say  nothing  of  the 
special  divine  supervision  by  Christ  the  in- 
visible head  of  the  Church,  by  the  weakness 
of  its  visible  head  the  Pope,  as  far  as  the  arms 
of  this  world  are  concerned. 

But  now  an  important  point  must  be  con- 
sidered; and  it  is  this.  The  sphere  of  the 
Papal  government  is  spiritual,  not  temporal. 
The  Pope,  as  such,  has  no  right  to  command  in 
matters  which  simply  concern  the  temporal  well- 
being  of  men  in  general,  or  even  of  Catholics 
in  particular ;  in  other  words,  he  has  no  power 
to  make  laws  on  those  subjects  with  which  the 
State  is  legitimately  concerned.     On  the  con- 


The  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff.       147 

trary,  his  whole  influence,  and  that  of  the 
Church  in  general,  is  rightfully  used,  and  as  a 
matter  of  fact  has  always  been  used,  to  incul- 
cate obedience  to  existing  governments,  even 
though  their  strict  right  to  govern  might  be 
questioned.  It  has  always  maintained  the  doc- 
trine taught  by  St.  Paul  (Rom.  xiii.  1-2)  : 
''Let  every  soul  be  subject  to  higher  powers; 
for  there  is  no  power  but  from  God  :  and  those 
that  are,  are  ordained  of  God.  Therefore  he 
that  resisteth  the  power,  resisteth  the  ordinance 
of  God.  And  they  that  resist,  purchase  to 
themselves  damnation . ' ' 

It  is  perfectly  clear  to  any  one  who  will  read 
history  that  disobedience  to  the  laws  of  the 
State  has  been  always  regarded  by  the  Church 
as  sinful,  as  long  as  the  State  keeps  within  its 
legitimate  province.  But  if  the  State  arrogates 
to  itself  powers  which  belong  to  the  direct  gov- 
ernment of  God  over  the  individual  soul,  or  to 
the  province  of  the  Church  itself  as  the  guide 
of  its  members  in  spiritual  affairs,  such  an 
usurpation  the  Church  cannot  sanction.  The 
State  cannot  lawfully  command  us  to  blaspheme 
the  name  of  God,  or  to  commit  adultery; 
neither  can  it  command  us  to  deny  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  as  the  emperors  of  heathen  Rome 
and  other  persecutors  have  endeavored  to  do. 
Nor  can  the  State  make  laws  directing  the  con- 
sciences of  Catholics  in  the  matter  of  a  divine 


148       The  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff, 

institution  like  marriage,  which  has  a  spiritual 
as  well  as  a  temporal  aspect,  except  so  far  as 
the  merely  temporal  part,  such  as  the  inheri- 
tance of  property,  is  concerned. 

This  was  the  basis,  for  example,  of  the  resist- 
ance of  Catholics  to  the  attempts  of  the  English 
sovereigns,  specially  of  Henry  VIII.,  Elizabeth, 
and  James  I.,  to  enforce  the  oath  of  allegiance 
to  the  sovereign  as  head  of  the  Church  as  well 
as  of  the  State.  This  Catholics  knew  to  be  an 
intrusion,  an  usurpation  of  power;  and  they 
suffered  heavy  penalties,  and  often  a  most  horri- 
ble form  of  death,  rather  than  submit  to  it.  I 
shall  have  more  to  say  of  this  matter  of  persecu- 
tion later  on.  For  the  present  it  may  merely  be 
remarked  that  what  may  be  called  persecution 
on  the  part  of  the  State,  of  openly  expressed 
opinions  and  of  practices  which  are  contrary  to 
its  well-being  in  the  temporal  order,  are  obvi- 
ously sometimes  necessary,  as  in  the  cases  of 
anarchists  and  polygamists  ;  though  the  victims 
may  complain  that  their  consciences  are  tram- 
pled on,  and  if  they  really  believe  that  their 
consciences  speak  to  them  in  the  name  of  God, 
may  be  properly  called  martyrs  to  what  appears 
to  them  to  be  the  truth. 

The  relations  of  the  Pope  and  of  the  Catholic 
Church  to  the  State,  or  in  other  words,  to  the 
political  government  of  the  country,  are  a  matter 
most  important  to  understand,  and  one  which 


The  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff,       149 


has  always  occupied  a  foremost  place  in  the 
minds  of  Englishmen  and  Americans.  It  is  not 
too  much  to  say  that  the  real  reason  of  the  suc- 
cess of  the  Reformation  in  England  was  not  so 
much  any  attachment  to  its  doctrines  on  the 
part  of  Englishmen,  as  a  fear  and  jealousy  of 
Papal  interference  in  the  government  of  the 
country.  And  it  is  the  same  here.  We  hear 
continually  that  the  Catholics  care  more  for  the 
Pope  than  for  America,  that  the  priests  manage 
and  control  their  vote  in  the  interests  of  the 
Church,  and  other  »stuff  of  this  kind,  which 
would  be  simply  amusing  to  us  from  the  ab- 
surdity of  many  forms  in  which  the  idea  is  ex- 
pressed, did  we  not  know  that,  strange  and 
ludicrous  as  it  seems  to  us,  it  is  considered 
quite  a  serious  matter  by  our  fellow-country- 
men. ^  If  they  only  knew  a  little,  or  would  make 
themselves  a  little  acquainted  with  the  way 
things  really  work,  they  would  see  that  priests 
do  not  and  cannot  direct  the  Catholic  people 
politically,  except  where  some  moral  question  is 
involved  in  which  the  voice  of  the  Catholic 
Church  may  be  quite  clear,  as,  for  example,  the 
matter  of  temperance,  or  of  the  laws  of  mar- 
riage ;  and  they  would  notice  if  they  would 
follow  the  priest  in  his  daily  life  in  his  house 
and  in  the  church,  that  politics  played  much 
less  of  a  part  in  it  than  in  that  of  the  Protestant 
minister,  especially  in  these   latter  days;  that 


1 50       The  Primacy  of  the  Roman  Pontiff, 

he  does  not  preach  about  politics,  talk  about  it 
on  the  streets  or  in  the  homes  of  his  people,  or 
bring  it  up  in  the  confessional.  To  do  so 
would  simply  weaken  his  influence  on  the 
people  for  good,  and  they  would  in  fact  be 
scandalized  at  a  priest's  devoting  much  time 
even  to  talking  about  it,  and  still  more  if  he 
should  be  a  political  worker.  Of  course  there 
are  such  cases,  and  the  Catholic  people  do  not 
admire  them. 

And  if  Protestants  would  inquire  a  little,  they 
would  also  find  that  priests  who  do  take  interest 
in  politics  are  on  both  sides,  both  Democrat  and 
Republican  ;  that  they  sometimes  get  into  quite 
animated  discussion  among  themselves  about 
political  matters ;  and  that  the  same  is  the  case 
with  the  Catholic  people.  The  priests  may 
have  political  opinions,  of  course,  like  any 
other  American  citizens,  but  they  cannot  force 
them  on  the  people  for  the  very  simple  reason 
that  they  disagree  with  each  other,  and  cannot 
speak  in  the  name  of  the  Church  about  these 
matters  because  the  Church  does  not  tell  them 
what  to  say. 

But  in  connection  with  this  general  subject 
there  is  one  special  point  deserving  of  a  more 
extended  discussion ;  one  which  has  excited  a 
good  deal  of  interest,  and  never  more  than  at 
present,  in  the  minds  of  Americans  ;  and  that  is 
the  position   the   Catholic    Church   takes  with 


Catholic  Education.  1 5 1 

regard  to  education,  which  seems  to  many 
Protestants  unpatriotic  (if  they  do  not  call  it  by 
some  worse  name)  and  full  of  danger  for  the 
future  of  the  country.  As  this  matter  comes 
right  in  our  line  at  present,  I  will  devote  a 
chapter  to  it,  though  it  has  no  very  direct  rela- 
tion to  the  substance  of  the  profession  of  faith 
which  we  are  occupied  in  considering. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 

CATHOI.IC   KDUCATION. 

AS  we  enter  on  this  subject,  I  shall  first 
endeavor  to  dislodge  from  your  minds  a 
strange  idea  which  seems  to  have  settled  quite 
firmly  in  those  of  many  American  Protestants ; 
that  is,  that  the  main  point  Catholics  are 
anxious  about  in  educational  matters  is  the 
driving  of  the  Bible  out  of  the  schools.  Our 
Protestant  friends  start  with  the  assumption 
that  we  detest  the  Bible,  and  do  not  want  our 
people  to  read  it  or  even  hear  of  it.  They 
believe  that  Martin  Luther  dragged  it  from 
the  obscurity  to  which  it  had  been  consigned 
for  centuries,  and  that  one  of  the  principal 
efforts  of  the  Church  has  been  ever  since  then 
to  get  it  back,  at  least  as  far  as  Catholics  are 
concerned,  into  that  obscurity. 


I  5  2  Catholic  Education, 

In  fact,  the  effort  of  the  Church  has  always 
been  the  other  way ;  that  is,  to  induce  her 
children  to  read  the  Bible.  It  was,  of  course, 
rather  difficult  to  do  much  at  this  before  the 
invention  of  printing ;  Bibles,  though  com- 
moner than  other  books,  were  rare  enough, 
necessarily.  But  when  printing  was  invented 
Bibles  were  immediately  printed,  and  Catholics 
were  encouraged  to  read  them.  It  is  strange 
how  hard  it  is  to  get  solid,  hard,  historical 
facts  into  the  heads  of  those  whose  previous 
ideas  do  not  fit  in  with  them,  and  how  the  most 
absurd  legends  are  accepted  in  their  place.  As 
to  the  facts,  I  quote  from  Dr.  Maitland's  Dark 
Ages  the  following,  which  may  be  more  con- 
vincing, as  the  author  was  a  distinguished 
Protestant  clergyman,  librarian  to  the  Arch- 
bishop of  Canterbury,  and  a  Fellow  of  the 
Royal  Society.  He  says:  "To  say  nothing 
of  parts  of  the  Bible,  or  of  books  whose  place  is 
uncertain,  we  know  of  at  least  twenty  different 
editions  of  the  whole  Ivatin  Bible  printed  in 
Germany  only  before  Luther  was  born." 
Again,  Seckendorf,  the  biographer  and  admirer 
of  IvUther,  confesses  in  his  Comnie?iiaries  on 
Lutheranisin  that  three  distinct  editions  of 
the  Bible  trajislated  into  German  were  pub- 
lished at  Wittenberg  in  1470,  1483,  and  1490. 
Now  lyUther  was  born  in  1483.  In  all,  about 
sevcjity  editions  of  the  Bible,  translated  into  the 


Catholic  Education,  153 

vernacular  tongues  of  Europe,  were  published 
before  lyUther  had  got  out  one. copy  of  his  Ger- 
man Bible. 

The  Bible  that  Luther  found,  and  which  it  is 
supposed  was  such  a  great  discovery,  was  a 
Latin  one;  it  will  be  seen  from  what  has  just 
been  said  what  nonsense  it  is  to  suppose  that  he 
found  it  by  a  rare  chance,  and  rescued  it  from 
obscurity.  And  yet  he  had  the  audacity  to  say, 
in  his  Table  Talk,  that  he  was  twenty  years 
old  before  he  saw  the  Scriptures.  This,  no 
doubt,  may  impose  and  has  imposed  on  many  ; 
but  to  those  in  possession  of  the  facts  it  must 
be  evident  either  that  he  was  singularly  ignor- 
ant or  indifferent  in  his  early  life  about  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  or  that  when  he  made  the 
above  statement  he  was  simply  telling  a  lie. 

I  said  above  that  the  desire  and  effort  of  the 
Church  is,  and  always  has  been,  that  Catholics 
should  read  the  Bible.  But  she  desires  that 
they  should  read  it  reverently,  not  twisting  it 
to  support  their  owm  fancies,  but  understand- 
ing its  more  difficult  passages  as  they  have 
been  understood  by  learned  and  enlightened 
Christian  commentators.  Catholics,  however, 
have  never  been  so  anxious  to  read  it  as  the 
Church  has  been  that  they  should  do  so ;  and 
indeed  the  reason  is  not  far  to  seek.  For  they 
know  that  no  passage  of  the  Bible  is  contrary 
to    their   faith,    or   can    teach   them    anything 


1 54  Catholic  Education, 

absolutely  new  or  startling  in  the  matter  of  re- 
ligion, when  it  is  rightly  understood ;  so  it 
becomes  to  them  a  book  of  what  we  call 
spiritual  reading,  very  excellent  no  doubt,  but 
in  most  of  its  parts  differing  principally  from 
other  spiritual  books  (of  which  we  have,  by 
the  way,  probably  a  hundred  to  every  one  pos- 
sessed by  Protestants)  in  its  being  absolutely 
authoritative  and  inspired,  whereas  the  others 
are  only  practically  sure  to  be  free  from  error. 
In  other  spiritual  books  the  truths  of  the  Bible 
are  presented  more  fully  and  in  a  more  modern 
and  familiar  style,  so  that  we  can  hardly  won- 
der that  they  are,  as  a  rule,  preferred  ;  and  that 
though  good  Catholic  families  generally  have  a 
Bible,  it  is  more  venerated  than  read.  But 
none  have  any  principle  against  reading  the 
Bible ;  and  all  know  that  their  pastors  would 
like  them  to  read  it. 

But  why  then,  you  will  ask,  did  they,  and 
the  priests  too,  object  to  reading  the  Bible  in 
the  schools  ?  This  is  not  a  difficult  question  to 
answer.  One  reason  was  that  the  Bible  used 
was  the  Protestant  Bible,  to  which  we  have 
objections  on  account  of  its  not  being  an  author- 
ized, or  in  all  respects  a  correct  translation,  and 
also  on  account  of  its  leaving  out  a  number  of 
books  which  we  consider  as  the  word  of  God. 
Also  we  object  to  the  Bible,  a  book  confessedly 
hard  in  many  places  to  understand,  being  read 


Catholic  Education,  155 

out  to  children  and  young  people  by  persons 
often  having  no  real  acquaintance  with  or  rev- 
erence for  its  sacred  text ;  and  experience  shows 
that  the  reading  of  the  Bible  in  this  way  tends 
to  destroy  respect  for  it,  and  often  leads  even  to 
jokes  being  made  upon  its  words.  Lastly,  we 
should  always  object  to  having  Catholic  chil- 
dren forced  to  obtain  instruction  from  Protest- 
ant sources,  and  to  join  in  prayer  under  Prot- 
estant guidance.  We  do  not  force  our  religion 
on  others,  we  do  not  want  others  to  force  theirs 
on  us.  It  strikes  us  that  this  is  nothing  but 
the  liberty  to  which  Americans  are  entitled. 

Another  objection  that  Catholics  have  to  the 
reading  of  the  Bible  in  the  schools  is  that  it 
is  liable  to  be  accompanied  by  the  recitation 
of  the  Protestant  form  of  the  Lord's  prayer,  in 
which  the  words  ''for  thine  is  the  kingdom,  the 
power,  and  the  glory,  forever  and  ever,'*  which 
we  do  not  recognize  as  belonging  to  the  sacred 
text,  and  which  are  generally  considered  by 
critics  to  be  an  addition  made  by  copyists,  are 
found.  The  omission  of  the  ''Hail  Mary,"  a 
prayer,  as  has  been  seen,  dating  from  very  early 
times,  is  also  liable  to  give  scandal  to  our  chil- 
dren. The  long  and  short  of  it  is  that  we  pre- 
fer to  say  our  own  prayers,  and  to  say  them  in 
our  own  way. 

But  this  whole  matter  of  prayers  or  Bible- 
reading  is  in  fact,  as  has  been  already  stated, 


156  Catholic  Education. 

a  comparatively  unimportant  issue.  The  real 
point  is  that  we  do  not  consider  the  religious 
instruction  given  in  this  way  as  at  all  adequate, 
though  it  is,  of  course,  better  than  nothing,  ex- 
cept for  the  inconveniences  already  mentioned. 

We  regard  religion  as  the  most  important 
part  of  a  child's  education. 

We  are  very  far  from  despising  the  ordinary 
branches  of  knowledge  taught  in  the  public 
schools  ;  though,  in  common  with  many  others, 
we  consider  a  great  deal  of  the  instruction  there 
imparted  to  be  quite  useless,  simply  a  stuffing 
of  the  heads  and  straining  of  the  memory  of  the 
young  with  matters  of  no  use  except  for  those 
who  are  to  pursue  some  special  line  of  intellec- 
tual work  in  later  life.  But  we  consider 
instruction  in  the  principal  points  of  faith  as 
more  necessary  than  even  the  most  elementary 
teaching  of  arithmetic ;  since  it  is  much  more 
of  an  advantage  to  know  the  way  of  salvation 
than  to  be  able  to  add  up  a  column  of  figures. 
We  do  not  wonder  that  our  Protestant  or  infidel 
fellow-citizens  do  not  look  at  the  matter  just  as 
we  do ;  for  as  they  look  round  on  the  world  in 
general,  it  necessarily  seems  to  them  that 
creeds  are  simply  opinions  held  on  a  subject 
on  which  certainty  is  quite  unattainable,  and 
that  every  one  will  have  to  form  his  own  opin- 
ion after  his  school-days  are  over.  But  it  is 
different  with  us.     The  truths  of  faith  are  with 


Catholic  Education,  157 

us  a  matter  of  certain  knowledge,  not  of  opin- 
ion; they  are  verities  revealed  distinctly  by 
Almighty  God,  and  coming  down  to  us,  by  the 
wonderful  means  which  He  has  instituted,  un- 
changed and  immovable  through  these  eighteen 
centuries.  They  are  more  certain  as  well  as 
more  important  than  anything  else  we  can 
know,  for  it  is  God  Himself  who  tells  them 
to  us. 

We  insist,  then,  that  they  be  not  sacrificed  to 
matters  of  far  less  value.  We  do  not  want  to 
have  our  children,  tired  out  with  mental  appli- 
cation during  the  wxek,  restricted  to  an  hour  at 
most  on  Sunday  for  learning  these  supremel}' 
important  branches  of  knowledge.  And  we 
desire  this  not  only  as  Christians,  but  as  pa- 
triots ;  for  we  know  that  the  teachings  of  the 
Catholic  religion  are  the  best  that  can  possibly 
be  given  to  make  good  citizens.  A  Catholic 
who  believes  what  his  religion  teaches  cannot 
be  a  socialist,  an  anarchist,  or  a  free-lover. 
Indeed,  all  the  real  dangers  now  threatening 
the  social  fabric  come,  as  we  know  very  clearly, 
and  as  others  would  also  know  if  they  would 
only  try  to  find  out  what  we  really  do  teach, 
from  the  neglect  of  Catholic  doctrine. 

It  is,  then,  no  more  than  reasonable,  since  we 
cannot  expect  that  these  truths,  salutary  as 
they  are,  shoujd  be  taught  in  the  public 
schools,  that  we  should  use  all  lawful  means 


158  Catholic  Education. 

to  secure  them  at  least  for  our  own  people. 
We  do  not  want  to  force  them  on  any  one  else, 
but  we  do  not  want  to  lose  what  we  have,  and 
what  our  children  ought  to  have  after  us.  And 
also  it  is  reasonable  that  we  should  protest 
and  vote  against  all  compulsory  schemes  of 
education  which  would  prevent  us  from  teach- 
ing adequately  these  most  important  matters  to 
those  who,  by  the  faith  they  have,  will  firmly 
believe  and  act  upon  them.  And  it  is  also  per- 
fectly reasonable  that  we  should  endeavor  to 
have  the  public-school  funds  assigned  to  us  in 
such  proportion  as  our  numbers  and  our  contri- 
butions to  those  funds  warrant,  so  that  we, 
while  teaching  all  that  can  rightly  be  expected 
that  the  graduate  of  a  school  shall  know,  and 
being  willing  that  the  State  shall  see  that  we 
do  this,  shall  also  teach  these  other  matters  that 
the  State  itself  cannot  teach. 

Now,  I  say  that  we  are  willing  that  the  State 
should  see  that  we  teach  the  common  branches 
of  knowledge  which  all  should  have,  such  as 
reading,  writing,  arithmetic,  geography,  his- 
tory, and  the  more  elementary  portions  of 
mathematics  and  of  physical  science.  But 
there  is,  no  doubt,  a  difficulty  here. 

It  is  with  regard  to  history  especially.  We 
are  not  willing  that  distinctively  Protestant 
education  on  this  matter  should  be  given  to  our 
children.      We    are   not  willing,    for  instance, 


Catholic  Education,  159 

that  they  should  be  taught  that  lyUther  began 
his  Reformation  because  the  Church  was  selling 
people  permission  to  commit  sin.  We  do  not 
blame  3^ou  for  teaching  that  to  your  children, 
if  you  really  believe  it ;  but  we  know  that  it  is 
false.  We  know  that  an  indulgence  is  not  a 
permission  to  commit  sin ;  that  every  Catholic 
would  be  horrified  at  the  idea  of  a  permission 
to  commit  sin  being  given  under  any  circum- 
stances, and  much  more  that  it  should  be  sold. 
We  cannot  tolerate  instruction  being  given  to 
our  children  which  falsely  represents  the 
Church  as  a  monster  of  iniquity.  And  so 
with  regard  to  other  matters  which  Protestants 
hardly  notice,  and  which,  perhaps,  slip  in  here 
and  there  in  connection  with  almost  any  sub- 
ject, so  much  have  they  been  accustomed  to 
take  false  statements  against  the  Church  for 
granted,  and  even  to  consider  them  as  self- 
evident  truths.  As,  for  example,  the  common 
representation  in  geographies  of  countries  as 
being  * '  enlightened  ' '  simply  because  they  are 
Protestant,  while  Catholic  ones  are  barely  rec- 
ognized as  "  civilized,"  if  even  that  courtesy  is 
allowed  them.  We  want  our  children  to  learn 
facts,  not  opinions.  We  do  not  want  to  fling 
mud  at  Protestants,  or  represent  them  as  hold- 
ing doctrines  which  they  themselves  disclaim  ; 
and  if  any  such  statements  can  be  found  in  our 
books,    we    are    ready  to    expunge   them    in- 


i6o  Catholic  Education. 

stantly.  But  if  they  will  not  do  the  same  for 
us,  we  must  have  our  own  books ;  that  is  all 
there  is  about  it.  And  we  have  no  desire  to 
represent  Protestants  or  infidels  as  grovelling  in 
ignorance  or  laziness ;  we  give  them  full  credit 
for  what  they  have  done  and  are  doing  in  the 
natural  order,  and  simply  insist  that  they  shall 
give,  us  credit  for  what  we  have  also  done ;  if 
they  will  not  do  us  justice,  we  must  do  it  our- 
selves. 

We  are  ready  to  do  everything  that  we  can, 
without  sacrificing  our  most  vital  interests,  for 
the  convenience  of  all  ;  we  do  not  want  separate 
schools  fof  our  children  if  we  can  in  any  other 
way,  without  unjust  burden  on  ourselves,  get 
the  religious  instruction  for  them  which  they 
need.  We  do  not  want  to  build  up  any  walls 
between  our  children  and  others  unnecessarily  ; 
we  want  them  to  be  true  patriotic  Americans, 
heart  and  soul  devoted  to  the  interests  of  the 
glorious  nation  to  which  they  belong.  But  we 
cannot  sacrifice  the  spiritual  for  the  temporal, 
the  interests  of  eternity  for  those  of  this  world. 

Try,  then,  to  get  rid  of  these  bugbears  which 
have  been  haunting  the  English  mind  for  cen- 
turies about  our  wanting  to  subject  this  coun- 
try to  the  Pope  ;  these  visions  of  armies  of 
Jesuits,  in  or  out  of  disguise,  who  want  to  con- 
trol the  politics  of  the  nation  for  the  temporal 
aggrandizement  of    the   Church. .    We  would 


Catholic  Education,  l6l 

like  to  convert  you  all  to  tlie  Catholic  faith, 
that  is  true ;  but  we  want  to  do  so  by  reason 
and  truth,  not  by  force  or  trickery.  And  we 
desire  your  conversion  for  your  own  sake,  not 
for  any  advantage  it  is  going  to  bring  to  us. 
The  Pope  does  not  want  any  temporal  power  or 
kingdom,  except  so  much  as  is  needed  to  make 
him  independent  of  the  nations,  so  that  he  can 
freely  exercise  his  spiritual  office,  without  fear 
of  interference  or  undue  influence  from  any  of 
them.  He  would  not  take  the  Presidency,  or 
even  the  permanent  sovereignty,  of  this  or  any 
other  country,  except  that  of  which  he  has  been 
unjustly  deprived.  He  has  got  quite  enough 
to  attend  to  as  it  is. 

What  he  wants,  and  what  we  all  want,  is 
simply  to  have  in  fact  what  all  Americans  have 
in  theory  ;  that  is,  freedom  to  worship  God 
according  to  the  dictates  of  our  own  conscience, 
as  long  as  by  so  doing  we  do  not  injure  the 
liberty  or  the  rights  of  others.  That  is  the 
whole  matter  in  a  nutshell,  though  your  preju- 
dices may  make  it  hard  for  you  to  believe  it. 


CHAPTER  XV. 

THK    VKNKRATION     OF    THK    SAINTS,     AND     OF 
THKIR   IMAGKS. 

THIS  is  the  next  article  of  our  profession. 
And  it  is  a  point  on  which,  more  than  any 
other,  the  Protestant  mind  in  general  entertains 
false  notions  of  our  creed,  and  consequently 
objects  most  vehemently  to  it. 

It  is  even  said  that  in  order  to  indulge  our 
idolatrous  practices  we  have  gone  so  far  as  to 
suppress  the  second  commandment  of  the 
Decalogue,  by  which  the  worship  of  idols  is 
most  clearly  forbidden. 

It  is  really  a  wonderful  thing  that  intelligent 
people  should  suppose  that  we  wanted  to  do 
such  a  thing  as  this,  or  that  we  could  succeed' 
in  doing  it  even  if  we  wanted  to.  It  would  be 
a  great  deal  more  reasonable  to  say  that  we 
had  a  special  edition  of  our  own  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  which  Catholic 
lawyers  and  statesmen  held  to  be  the  correct 
one.  Even  if  you  will  believe  us  to  be  liars 
and  deceivers,  this  is  too  palpable  a  fraud. 

But  in  fact,  if  you  will  take  the  trouble  to 
look  into  a  Catholic  Bible,  a  book  to  be  found 
in  every  Catholic  book- store,  you  will  find,  in 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  163 

the  same  place  of  course  as  in  your  own  (Exod. 
XX.  4),  the  words:  *'  Thou  shalt  not  make  to 
thyself  a  graven  thing,  nor  the  likeness  of  any- 
thing that  is  in  heaven  above,  or  in  the  earth 
beneath,  nor  of  those  things  that  are  in  the 
waters  under  the  earth.  Thou  shalt  not  adore 
them,  nor  serve  them." 

And  you  will  find  the  same  thing  in  our 
catechisms,  large  and  small. 

It  is,  however,  true  that  in  some  of  the 
smaller  ones,  intended  only  for  little  children, 
this  commandment  is  omitted.  But  this  is 
simply  because  it  is  long  and  hard  to  remem- 
ber, and  because  it  would  be  difficult  for  the 
very  young  to  understand  what  it  means.  Be- 
fore they  get  through  their  Sunday-school  they 
have  it  all  in  full ;  it  is  not  kept  back  or  con- 
cealed from  any  Catholic. 

But  in  fact,  even  when  it  is  omitted,  the 
omission  can  hardly  do  harm.  For  really  the 
prohibition  of  the  worship  of  idols  which  it 
contains  is  implicitly  contained  in  the  words 
which  go  before,  and  which  are  always  given 
in  all  our  books,  ' '  thou  shalt  not  have  strange 
gods  before  me,"  or  as  it  stands  in  the  Protes- 
tant version,  * '  thou  shalt  have  no  other  gods 
before  me."  And  the  real  truth  of  the  matter 
is,  that  Protestants  have  made  a  mistake  in 
making  two  commandments  out  of  what  is 
really  one. 


164  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints. 

The  gist  of  this  one  commandment  is  the 
worship  of  the  one  true  God  to  the  exclusion  of 
all  others.  And  when  we  have  the  words 
"  thou  shalt  not  have  strange  gods  before  me  " 
we  have  idolatry  completely  shut  out.  If  we 
cannot  worship  any  god  but  the  One,  it  is  plain 
that  we  cannot  take  images  for  gods,  and  wor- 
ship them.  These  words  then,  out  of  which 
Protestants  make  their  second  commandment, 
are  really  only  a  principal  application  of  what 
goes  before. 

To  compensate  for  the  error  made  in  dividing 
the  first  commandment  into  two,  Protestants 
have  been  obliged  to  run  two  into  one  some- 
where else  in  order  to  get  the  number  ten,  as  it 
should  be.  They  have,  therefore,  taken  the 
two  prohibitions  at  the  end  about  coveting  the 
neighbor's  wife  and  his  goods  (which  are  dis- 
tinct exactly  in  the  same  way  as  those  about 
adultery  and  stealing,  being  the  desires  cor- 
responding to  these  acts)  and  made  one  out  of 
them.  And  because  we  look  at  the  matter  in 
a  different  and  really  more  reasonable  light, 
they  jump  at  the  conclusion  that  we  want  to 
get  idolatry  in  by  suppressing  the  prohibition 
of  it.  They  take  one  little  catechism,  and  that 
is  enough  to  settle  the  matter.  But  I  hope  you 
see  by  this  time  that  we  have  and  teach  all 
this  about  the  making  of  graven  images  just 
the  same  as  you  do. 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  165 

But  now  perhaps  you  say  :  ' '  Even  if  this  is 
so,  it  does  not  help  your  case,  though  it  does 
make  a  point  against  us.  For  if  the  worship 
of  images  is  condemned  in  what  you  admit  to 
be  the  word  of  God,  you  are  all  the  worse  in 
practically  sanctioning  and  allowing  it." 

Still,  I  think  any  one  keeping  up  the  attack 
on  these  lines  would  begin  to  lose  courage  a 
little.  For  he  would  see  that  when  you  look 
at  the  matter  closely,  it  is  getting  to  be  a  little 
hard  to  show  that  we  are  sinning  against  this 
law  of  God. 

For  surely  this  law  cannot  mean  that  we  are 
not  to  make  images  of  any  kind.  If  so,  there 
has  been  a  fearful  disregard  of  it  in  almost  all 
Christian  countries.  If  that  is  the  sense  of  it, 
the  sculptor's  business  is  wrong  all  the  way 
through,  and  ought  to  be  most  severely  pro- 
hibited by  law.  Those  statues  of  great  men 
ought  to  be  removed  from  our  streets  and 
public  squares  ;  you  ought  to  smash  the  little 
statuettes  you  probably  have  in  the  house  and 
throw  the  pieces  in  the  ash-barrel ;  you  ought 
not,  if  you  value  your  soul,  to  buy  a  Noah's 
ark  for  your  children  ;  for  the  man  who  got  this 
up  broke  this  commandment  in  the  most 
wholesale  way. 

Oh,  no  !  you  will  say,  '^  we  are  not  so  foolish 
as  to  think  that  we  may  never  make  images  of 
anything  at  all.     What  everybody  understands 


1 66  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints, 

by  this  law  of  God  is,  that  we  must  not  worship 
images.  And  that  is  just  what  you  Catholics 
are  doing  all  the  time.  Why,  you  cannot  go 
into  a  Catholic  church  but  you  see  some  wo- 
man, or  perhaps  even  a  man,  who  ought  to 
have  more  sense,  kneeling  down  before  one  of 
these  images  you  have,  and  praying  to  it  as  if 
it  were  God.  If  that  is  not  idolatry,  I  don't 
know  what  is.'* 

No  doubt  it  seems  to  you  now  that  you  have 
a  good  certain  charge  against  us.  Let  us  see. 
After  all,  one  should  not  judge  entirely  by  ap- 
pearances. If  there  is  any  doubt,  every  one  is 
entitled  to  the  benefit  of  it  before  having  to 
bear  the  grave  charge  of  idolatry.  According 
to  the  principles  of  law,  one  should  be  con- 
sidered innocent  until  his  guilt  is  proved. 

The  only  real  fact  the  charge  is  based  on  is, 
that  the  woman  is  praying,  and  that  while 
praying  she  is  kneeling  before  a  statue.  Now, 
I  suppose  that  when  you  pray  yourself  you  are 
kneeling  ;  that  is  the  posture  which  is  generally 
considered  proper  for  prayer,  though  some  ad- 
vanced Christians  pray,  or  at  any  rate  join  in 
the  minister's  prayers,  without  leaving  their 
seats,  perhaps  bending  the  head  a  little,  or  put- 
ting their  hands  or  hats  before  their  faces. 
Still,  I  hardly  think  even  these  would  claim 
that  kneeling  was  an  inappropriate  position,  or 
showed  too  much  respect. 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  l6y 

Well,  then,  if  one  is  kneeling,  he  must  kneel 
before  something,  and  probably  look  at  some- 
thing, unless  it  is  of  obligation  to  put  one's 
head  down  on  a  chair  or  a  bed  (which,  I  am 
sorry  to  say,  even  Catholics  are  too  apt  to  do) , 
or  to  close  one's  eyes.  The  difficulty,  you  see, 
about  either  of  these  methods  is  that  one  is 
quite  apt  to  go  to  sleep.  So  it  is  better  to  keep 
one's  eyes  open  and  the  head  straight  up, 
though  this  does  require  some  effort. 

If,  then,  one  does  this,  is  it  best  to  look  at  a 
blank  wall,  or  at  some  other  object  ?  It  seems 
naturally  best  to  look  at  something  which  in 
some  way  suggests  pious  thoughts  and  keeps 
the  mind  from  wandering.  If  the  mind  has  no 
picture  presented  to  it,  it  will  make  one  of  its 
own,  probably.  So  if  we  are  praying  to  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  the  immense  majority 
of  Christians,  believing  in  His  Divinity,  con- 
sider it  perfectly  lawful  to  do,  is  there  any 
harm  in  having  a  representation  of  Him  before 
our  eyes ;  a  picture  of  Him  such  as  even  Prot- 
estants often  have,  as  He  appeared  at  some 
time  during  His  life  here,  or  as  we  may  imagine 
Him  to  appear  now  in  heaven  ?  Will  not  this 
help  to  fix  our  thoughts  on  Him  ?  Really,  it  is 
not  very  easy  to  see  why  Protestants  should  not 
help  themselves  in  this  way  to  pray  well  and 
fervently.  And  even  if  one  is  praying,  as  we 
generally  do,  to   the   Eternal  Father  Himself, 


1 68  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints, 

why  not  have  before  our  eyes  a  representation 
of  His  well-beloved  Son,  and  especially  of  His 
Sacrifice  on  the  Cross,  through  which  our 
prayers  become  efficacious  with  God  ?  Why 
there  should  be  any  objection  to  praying  before 
a  crucifix  is  really  a  puzzle  ;  still  more  is  it  a 
puzzle  why  Christians  should  object  to  having 
a  crucifix  in  their  house,  when  they  would 
willingly  have  a  picture  or  a  statue  of  George 
Washington  or  Abraham  Lincoln. 

Well,  now  let  us  go  a  step  farther.  Suppose 
you  had  some  dear  friend  whom  you  confidently 
believed  to  be  now  in  heaven ;  one  whose 
whole  life  had  been  to  you  an  example  of  piety 
and  virtue ;  one,  the  very  thought  of  whom 
would  bring  you  nearer  to  God  and  make  you 
feel  the  value  of  prayer,  and  induce  you  to  pray 
as  this  one  did  ;  would  it  not  help  you  in  your 
prayer  to  have  the  picture  of  such  an  one  be- 
fore your  eyes? 

**  Oh,  well !  "  you  say,  ''  this  is  all  very  fine  ; 
but  everybody  knows  that  Catholics  are  not 
using  their  pictures  and  statues,  or  even  their 
crucifixes,  in  this  way.  They  are  making  real 
idols  of  them;  attaching,  that  is,  a  superstitious 
value  to  them  ;  believing  that  these  images  and 
pictures  have  a  real  power  in  themselves  ;  in 
short,  making  gods  of  them." 

The  true  and  the  short  answer  to  this  is,  that 
nobody  knows  anything  of  the  kind;  for  no- 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints.  169 

body  can  know  something  which  is  entirely 
false.  No  Catholic,  however  ignorant,  h^s  any 
such  idea  as  this,  as  you  would  find  out  if  you 
would  ask  any  one  whom  you  found  praying  in 
this  way.  It  might  not  be  safe  always  to  ask 
such  a  question,  for  it  would  be  regarded  as  an 
insult,  and  might  naturally  provoke  a  sharp 
reply,  if  not  something  more,  unless  the  person 
questioned  happened  to  be  a  saint.  The  feeling 
it  ought  to  excite  would  be  pity  for  the  igno- 
rance of  the  questioner ;  but  people  are  not  al- 
ways reasonable,  and  might  be  apt  to  look  at 
the  matter  in  a  different  way. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  the  person  asked,  if 
patient  enough  to  explain  the  matter  to  you, 
would  quite  probably  give  an  account  of  what 
he  or  she  was  doing  somewhat  different  from 
that  which  I  have  thus  far  given.  It  might  be 
admitted  that  the  prayers  now  being  made  were 
addressed  not  immediately  to  God,  but  to  the 
saint  whose  picture  or  statue  was  there. 

But  if  so,  what  then  ?  Suppose  that  the  dear 
friend  of  whom  I  have  spoken  were  to  appear 
visibly  before  you  from  heaven,  would  you 
simply  converse  with  him  on  ordinary  matters  ? 
Would  it  not  occur  to  you  that  if  he  prayed  a 
good  deal  on  earth,  there  was  no  reason  why 
this  habit  of  prayer  should  have  been  dropped, 
especially  as  now  he  did  not  need  to  pray  for 
himself?     Would   you   not    then    ask  that  he 


1 70  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints, 

would  pray  for  you,  that  you  might  also  save 
your  soul,  as  he  had  done  ?  Do  you  seriously 
believe  that  if  your  clergyman,  your  father,  or 
your  mother,  can  pray  for  you  in  this  world, 
that  they  cannot  do  so  if  they  are  admitted  to 
the  presence  of  God  in  heaven  ? 

"  Oh  !  "  you  say,  '*  of  course  I  suppose  they 
could,  and  probably  I  would  ask  them  to  do  so. 
But  you  see  it  is  not  the  person  in  heaven  that 
appears  to  you,  but  only  a  picture  or  a  statue, 
and  that  of  somebody  you  never  knew  in  this 
world,  and  who  probably  does  not  know  or  care 
any  more  about  you  than  the  picture  or  statue 
itself  does." 

Here  I  acknowledge  that  you  have  at  last 
made  a  reasonable  point.  And  I  do  not  under- 
take to  prove  to  you  that  when  we  pray  before  a 
picture  or  a  statue  of  a  saint,  that  that  saint  in- 
fallibly hears  or  knows  what  we  are  saying,  or 
even  what  we  are  doing.  But  I  do  say  that 
it  is  not  impossible  or  absurd  that  they  may. 
lyct  us  listen  to  some  words  of  our  Lord  that 
have  some  bearing  on  this  point.  He  says 
(Matt.  XXV.  20):  '*  And  he  that  had  received 
the  five  talents,  coming,  brought  other  five 
talents,  saying  :  Lord,  thou  didst  deliver  to  me 
five  talents,  behold  I  have  gained  other  five 
over  and  above.  His  lord  said  to  him :  Well 
done,  good  and  faithful  servant,  because  thou 
hast  been  faithful  over  a  few  things,  I  will  place 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  171 

thee  over  Tnany  things  :  enter  thou  into  the  joy 
of  thy  lord."  And  in  St.  Luke  xix.  17  we 
find  a  similar  passage  :  ' '  Well  done,  thou  good 
servant,  because  thou  hast  been  faithful  in  a 
little,  thou  shalt  have  power  over  ten  cities." 

These  passages  show  clearly  what  indeed  we 
should  naturally  expect ;  namely,  that  the  ser- 
vants of  God  who  have  pleased  Him  in  this 
world  shall  in  the  next  have  their  opportu- 
nities and  consequently  their  powers  for  good, 
very  much  extended ;  that  they  shall  be  able 
without  effort  to  attend  to  much  more  than  they 
could  possibly  have  attended  to  here.  And  it 
is  not  for  us  to  place  the  limit  to  this  extension 
of  their  powers,  as  long  as  it  remains  finite  ; 
while  it  is  that,  it  is  infinitely  inferior  to  the 
power  of  God  itself.  And  we  should  also  bear 
in  mind  the  immense  extension  in  late  years  of 
even  our  natural  powers  by  natural  means, 
such  as  the  telegraph  particularly  ;  for  if  so 
much  can  be  done  naturally,  how  much  more 
supernaturally  ?  And  if  great  men  here  on 
earth  have  been  able  to  attend,  simultaneously, 
as  it  would  seem,  to  many  times  as  much  busi- 
ness as  the  ordinary  man  could  manage,  why 
cannot  the  saints  in  heaven  even  far  surpass 
them  ? 

Another  consideration  must  now  be  added. 
We  must  remember  that  the  saints  in  heaven 
see  God  face  to  face  ;  as  St.  Paul  says  (I.  Cor. 


I  ^2  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints, 

xiii.  12):  ''  We  see  now  through  a  glass  in  a 
dark  manner  :  but  then  face  to  face.  Now  I 
know  in  part ;  but  then  shall  I  know  even  as  I 
am  known.'*  They  can  then,  without  the  in- 
terposition of  other  means,  know  directly  what 
God  knows,  so  far  as  it  pleases  Him  to  reveal  it 
to  them. 

And  besides  all  that  has  been  said,  we  must 
all  acknowledge  that  even  if  the  saint  does  not 
know  of  each  prayer  that  we  make,  asking  his 
or  her  intercession,  at  any  rate  God  knows  it ; 
and  He  is  pleased  with  the  honor  shown  to  one 
who  has  been  His  friend  in  life,  and  is  many 
times  more  His  friend  now ;  for  He  knows  that 
this  honor  is  not  intended  to  shut  out  the  honor 
due  to  Himself  any  more  than  the  good  opinion 
which  we  have  of  a  holy  man  on  earth  does. 
Why,  then,  should  He  not  grant  Himself  the 
favor  which  He  knows  that  we  are  asking, 
even  more  readily  when  these  friends  of  His  are 
invoked,  since  He  knows  that  it  is  not  ac- 
companied by  any  distrust  of  His  own  goodness 
and  mercy? 

But  there  is  one  thing  more  to  fall  back  on. 
You  say  that  kneeling  is  too  much  honor  to  pay 
to  any  one  but  God  Himself. 

Now,  this  idea  is  one  which  perhaps  would 
hardly  occur  .to  any  one  but  an  American,  or  a 
citizen  at  any  rate  of  some  republic,  where 
one  shakes  hands  with   the   chief  magistrate, 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  173 

and  calls  him  plain  ''Mr.'*  ;  the  subjects  of 
monarchies,  even  of  constitutional  ones,  are  ac- 
customed to  a  good  deal  of  ceremony  in  the 
presence  of  princes,  even  going  so  far  as  genu- 
flexions. But  we  Americans  do  not  like  these 
obeisances,  and  feel  that  we  can  have  all  due 
respect  for  authority  interiorly  without  showing 
it  in  this  way. 

Probably  we  are  in  a  great  measure  right ;  at 
any  rate  there  is  no  doubt  that  these  ceremonies 
of  earthly  courts  may  proceed  merely  from 
human  pride,  and  in  any  case  that  the  interior 
is  vastly  more  important  than  the  exterior. 
God  Himself  infinitely  prefers  a  contrite  and 
humble  heart  to  au}^  amount  of  exterior  posing. 
But  still  the  interior  naturally  suggests  the  ex- 
terior; if  one  really  feels  interiorly  abased,  it 
is  likely  that  he  will  feel  like  taking  a  humble 
position  of  body,  and  will  do  so  unless  some 
principle  restrains  him ;  unless  he  thinks  or 
believes  that  it  would  be  wrong  for  him  to  do  so. 

The  question  then  is.  Is  it  really  wrong  to 
kneel  before  any  one  but  God  ?  If  it  is  not, 
surely  we  can  be  allowed  to  do  so,  if  we  like. 
We  are  not  forced  to  do  so,  unless  by  refusing 
we  disturb  the  peace  and  quiet  of  an  assembly, 
as  would  be  the  case  if  a  person  should  insist 
on  standing  up  in  a  Catholic  church  because 
the  prayers  happening  to  be  said  at  the  time 
were  addressed  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  or  some 


174  1^^^  Veneration  of  the  Saints, 

saint.  If  any  one  objects  to  kneeling  in  church, 
he  has  an  easy  remedy ;  he  can  either  quietly 
leave  the  church,  or  he  can  at  least  remain  seated. 

Well,  then,  to  come  to  the  point,  if  it  is  wrong 
to  kneel  before  any  one  but  God,  we  ought,  if 
any  account  can  be  found  in  the  Bible  of  any 
one  kneeling  before  a  holy  man  or  an  angel,  to 
find  that  he  was  told  not  to  do  so.  But  in  fact 
it  is  just  the  other  way. 

We  find  in  the  first  chapter  of  the  second 
book  of  Kings  (we  call  it  the  fourth  book)  an 
account  of  several  messengers  being  sent  by 
the  king  to  Elijah  (or  EHas,  as  we  call  him,  and 
as  your  Bible  also  does  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment) .  The  first  two  did  not  treat  the  prophet 
with  much  respect,  but  ordered  him,  in  the 
name  of  the  king,  to  come  down  from  the  hill 
where  he  was.  The  result  was  that  they,  with 
the  men  they  had  brought  with  them,  were  con- 
sumed by  fire  from  heaven. 

The  third  learned  wisdom  from  the  fate  of 
the  others,  and  coming  to  Elias,  ''fell  on  his 
knees"  before  him  (v.  13)  and  begged  him  to 
spare  his  life.  Was  Elias  angry  now  at  this 
''idolatry"  on  the  messenger's  part,  and  pun- 
ished him  (or  rather,  did  God  punish  him  ?  for  of 
course  Elias  had  in  himself  no  such  power)  for 
his  showing  too  great  reverence,  as  he  had  the 
others  for  showing  too  little?  By  no  means. 
On   the   contrary   we   find    (v.    15)    that    "the 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  175 

Angel  of  the  Lord  spoke  to  Elias,  saying,  Go 
down  with  him;  fear  not." 

We  also  find  (II.  Kings  iv.  27  and  37)  that 
the  Sunamite  woman  offered  similar  homage  to 
Elisha,  falling  at  his  feet,  and  that  the  prophet 
would  not  have  her  corrected  or  disturbed  for 
so  doing. 

Let  us  look  now  at  the  tenth  chapter  of  the 
book  of  Daniel.  We  find  there  that  Daniel, 
as  he  was  standing  by  the  bank  of  the  Tigris, 
suddenly  saw  a  magnificent  and  terrible  angel ; 
and  that  at  the  sight  of  him  he  fell  on  the 
ground  in  a  faint.  The  Angel  roused  him  from 
this,  and  set  him  on  his  knees  and  hands,  and 
spoke  a  few  words  to  him ;  he  did  not  rebuke 
him  for  this,  as  it  were,  slavish  position,  but 
actually  placed  him  in  it.  As,  however,  he 
wished  to  inspire  him  with  confidence,  and  to 
remove  his  terror,  that  he  might  listen  atten- 
tively and  intelligently  to  the  words  which  were 
to  be  said,  he  then  told  him  to  stand  ;  and 
Daniel  stood  trembling,  evidently  much  prefer- 
ring to  remain  in  his  more  humble  position. 
There  is  not  the  least  hint  that  Daniel  believed 
that  he  was  seeing  God  Himself;  the  vision  was 
in  fact  that  of  an  angel,  or  as  the  prophet  sa5^s, 
it  seemed  to  him  of  a  man  (v.  5)  ;  still  he  was 
afraid  to  stand  upright  before  one  whom  he 
recognized  as  a  representative  of  God.  And 
certainly  Daniel,  a  man  most  specially  divinely 


176  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints. 

enlightened  even  among  the  prophets,  would 
have  known  if  it  was  wrong  to  kneel,  and 
would  have  got  on  his  feet  of  his  own  accord. 

Now,  let  us  look  at  the  instance  given  in  the 
Revelation  (or  Apocalypse,  as  we  call  it)  of  St. 
John.  It  is  true  that  there  the  angel  at  whose 
feet  St.  John  fell  (xix.  10)  corrected  him  for 
the  adoration  he  was  about  to  give,  and  said, 
*'  See  thou  do  it  not;  I  am  thy  fellow-servant, 
and  of  thy  brethren  who  have  the  testimony  of 
Jesus.  Adore  God."  But  this  was  plainly 
because  St.  John  thought  that  Jesus  Himself 
was  standing  before  him,  and  wished  to  pay 
him  divine  honor  interiorly,  as  well  as  the 
exterior  obeisance.  It  may  be  observed  also 
that  we  are  not  told  that  the  angel  ordered  St. 
John  to  change  his  bodily  position,  which  he 
had  already  assumed. 

These  instances,  together  with  one  which  I 
am  about  to  mention  to  illustrate  what  I  shall 
shortly  say,  are  all  that  occur  to  me  in  the 
Bible  as  proving  anything  on  this  matter,  one 
way  or  the  other.  And  for  our  side,  one 
instance  is  sufficient.  If  it  is  essentially 
wrong  to  kneel  before  an  angel  or  a  man,  it 
cannot  be  right  under  any  circumstances ; 
whereas  it  may  be  right  in  itself,  but  wrongly 
intended  in  some  cases,  and  therefore  reproved 
in  those  cases. 

But  the  fact  is  that  the   worship   given  by 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  r  "jy 

Catholics  to  angels  and  saints,  and  expressed 
by  kneeling  or  other  outward  signs,  though 
not,  as  seems  clear  from  the  above  texts,  essen- 
tially wrong  to  be  paid  to  them  simply  as  ex- 
alted beings,  specially  honored  and  beloved  by 
God,  is  really  to  a  great  extent  a  worship  of 
God  Himself;  of  His  divine  majesty  and  per- 
fection as  shown  in  them.  It  is  because  they 
represent  God  that  we  specially  honor  them,  as 
one  honors  a  king  or  a  nation  in  the  ambassador 
as  representing  that  king  or  nation.  To  bring 
this  out  clearly,  let  us  again  turn  to  the  Bible 
(Gen.  xviii.)  We  shall  there  find  that  the 
lyord  appeared  to  Abraham  as  he  was  sitting 
at  the  door  of  hi3  tent.  The  vision  was  in 
the  form  of  three  men  ;  this  has  been  generally 
supposed  to  represent  the  Holy  Trinity.  Abra- 
ham went  to  meet  them,  and  ''adored  down 
to  the  ground,'*  as  our  version  has  it.  Yours 
says,  ''bowed  himself  toward  the  ground." 
But,  at  any  rate,  it  is  clear  that  he  was  paying 
God  honor  in  their  persons,  whatever  position 
he  assumed ;  for  he  said,  "  My  Lord,  if  I  have 
found  favor  in  thy  sight,  pass  not  away  from 
thy  servant."  It  is  also,  however,  plain  that 
he  did  not  regard  them  as  being  simply  God, 
but  as  representing  Him,  for  he  offered  to  wash 
their  feet,  and  asked  them  to  eat  bread,  and 
to  rest  under  the  tree ;  just  what  he  would 
have  said  to  any  honored  human  guests. 


1/8  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints, 

It  is,  then,  in  some  respects,  a  worship  to 
God  that  we  pay  when  we  honor  His  saints,  in 
whatever  way  we  may  do  it.  And  it  is  not  on 
account  of  their  excellence  in  themselves  that 
we  honor  them,  but  on  account  of  their  nearness 
to  Him,  and  their  showing  forth  of  His  divine 
perfections. 

And  experience  shows  that,  so  far  from  our 
hearts  being  estranged  from  God  by  our  honor- 
ing the  saints  and  praying  to  them,  it  is,  as  a 
rule,  those  Catholics  who  are  most  devout  to 
the  Blessed  Virgin  and  the  saints  who  also 
love  God  the  most,  and  give  the  surest  test 
of  that  love  by  being  willing  to  make  and 
actually  making  the  greatest  sacrifices  for  Him. 

I  have  said  a  good  deal  about  the  matter  of 
exterior  reverence,  because  our  actions  in  this 
way  are  so  much  misunderstood.  But  it  is 
clear,  if  we  think  of  it  reasonably,  that  of  itself 
the  matter  is  not  an  essential  one.  If  it  were 
essentially  necessary  to  be  always  kneeling 
when  speaking  to  God,  not  only  would  most 
Protestants  be  much  at  fault,  but  the  prayers 
of  all  of  us  would  be  much  restricted.  There 
is  nothing  in  the  exterior  actions  of  worship 
which  is  strictly  necessary,  or  which  has  any 
absolute  significance ;  all  really  depends  on  the 
interior  spirit  and  intention,  which  expresses 
itself  in  different,  but  not  necessarily  or  even 
possibly,  in  adequate  exterior  forms. 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  179 

Now,  in  connection  with  this  matter  of  the 
veneration  of  the  saints,  I  want  also  to  speak 
of  another  closely  related  to  it ;  and  that  is,  the 
value  which  we  place  on  relics. 

Really  this  is  nothing  peculiar  to  Catholics. 
We  have  only  to  visit  any  museum  to  see  the 
attraction  which  there  is  for  people  in  general 
in  the  relics  of  great  or  celebrated  men,  and 
even  of  those  who  have  been  noted  for  bad 
lives.  The  coat  or  writing-desk  of  Washington 
or  Napoleon  is  looked  at  with  great  interest, 
and  many  would  be  glad  to  pay  a  high  price  for 
such  an  article  ;  and  so  they  would,  quite  likely, 
for  a  piece  of  the  rope  with  which  some  notori- 
ous criminal  was  hung.  It  is  true  that  there 
are  some  who  do  not  care  about  such  things  ; 
but  I  think  they' are  the  exception,  and  by  no 
means  the  rule. 

The  feeling  cannot,  perhaps,  be  logically  rea- 
soned out  and  accounted  for,  but  it  is  there  all 
the  same.  It  is  really  hard  to  conceive  how  a 
Christian  could  possibly  be  indifferent  to,  or 
uninterested  in  the  seamless  garment  of  our 
Lord,  or  the  crown  of  thorns  which  was  placed 
on  His  head  at  the  time  of  His  Passion ;  or  that 
he  would  not  wish  very  much  to  have  a  portion 
of  either  of  these  for  his  own.  If  he  would 
highly  value  a  lock  of  his  mother's  hair,  or  any 
other  souvenir  of  one  who  had  been  so  dear  to 
him,  is  it  possible  that  he  would  be  indifferent 


1 80  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints, 

to  a  memento  of  One  whom  he  professes  to  love 
more  than  father  and  mother.  * '  He  that  loveth 
father  or  mother  more  than  me,  is  not  worthy 
of  me,"  says  our  Lord  Himself  (Matt.  x.  37)  ; 
how,  then,  can  a  Christian  be  indifferent  to  the 
relics  of  his  Saviour? 

And  if  we  love  Him,  we  love  also  in  a  special 
way  His  friends,  those  who  are  nearest  and 
dearest  to  Him;  His  Mother,  His  foster-father 
St.  Joseph,  His  Precursor  St.  John  Baptist,  His 
beloved  disciple  St.  John  the  Apostle,  and  the 
other  Apostles  to  whom  He  said,  '*I  will  not 
now  call  you  servants  :  for  the  servant  knoweth 
not  what  his  lord  doth.  But  I  have  called  you 
friends '  * ;  also  the  holy  martyrs  who  laid  down 
their  lives  for  Him,  and  the  saints  who,  more 
perfectly  and  completely  than  Christians  in  gen- 
eral, took  up  their  cross  and  followed  Him.  So 
in  a  similar  way  we  prize  and  treasure  memen- 
toes of  them,  as  we  would  His  own. 

The  only  difference,  then,  which  one  would 
expect  to  find  in  this  matter  of  mementoes  and 
relics,  as  also  in  that  of  pictures  and  statues, 
between  the  Christian  and  the  heathen  would 
be  in  the  persons  in  whom  interest  was  thus 
shown.  And  this  is  the  difference  we  do  find. 
The  world  has  pictures  and  statues  of  its  great 
ones;  of  great  rulers,  military  leaders,  states- 
men, poets,  inventors  in  the  arts  and  sciences, 
and  it  values  their  relics  ;  the  Christian  has  his 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  i8l 

pictures,  statues,  and  relics  of  those  who  have 
been  distinguished  in  the  matter  which  he  must 
needs  regard  as  of  paramount  importance — that 
is,  the  love  of  God. 

But  you  will  say,  *'  It  is  all  well  enough  for 
Catholics  to  care  about  relics  of  the  saints  ' ' 
(and  why  not  for  Protestants,  too  ?) ,  **  but  what 
we  object  to  is  that  they  attach  a  superstitious 
veneration  to  them.  They  think  that  the  pos- 
session of  a  relic  will  insure  their  salvation." 

I  do  not  deny  that  there  is  a  possibility  of  su- 
perstition in  this  matter;  but  there  is  always 
a  danger  of  any  religious  conviction  running 
into  superstition,  and  the  only  way  to  certainly 
guard  against  this  is  to  extinguish  the  religious 
feeling  too,  and  indeed  to  deny  the  supernatural 
altogether;  but  one  cannot  take  this  latter 
course  and  remain  a  Christian  at  all,  unless  one 
can  be  considered  as  a  Christian  who  simply  re- 
gards Christ  as  a  great  and  good  man.  But  the 
Catholic  Church  always  labors  to  prevent  and 
discourage  this  tendency  to  superstition,  not  to 
increase  and  encourage  it. 

The  occasion  for  it  lies  in  something  that  we 
cannot  get  rid  of,  unless  we  are  to  get  rid  of  the 
Bible  itself.  For  the  Bible  tells  us  that  God 
has  been  pleased  to  work  miracles  and  confer 
great  blessings  by  the  means  of  relics.  We 
find  (II.  Kings  xiii.  21)  that  when  a  dead  body 
was  put   into   the   sepulchre   of  Elisha,  "and 


1 82  The  Veneration  of  tJie  Saints, 

touched  the  bones  of  EHsha,  the  man  came  to 
life,  and  stood  upon  his  feet." 

We  find  also  (Matt.  ix.  20-22)  that  a  certain 
woman  came  behind  our  I^ord  ' '  and  touched 
the  hem  of  his  garment ;  for  she  said  within  her- 
self, If  I  shall  touch  only  his  garment,  I  shall 
be  healed."  And  she  was  healed.  Our  lyord 
did  not  call  her  act  superstition,  but  faith ;  He 
said  to  her,  ' '  Be  of  good  heart,  daughter,  thy 
faith  hath  made  thee  whole." 

Again  (Acts  v.  15),  we  find  that  the  people 
brought  the  sick  into  the  streets,  and  placed 
them  so  that  Peter's  shadow  at  least  might  fall 
on  them ;  and  it  would  appear  from  the  next 
verse  that  even  these  were  cured.  And  (Acts 
xix.  12)  that  **  there  were  brought  from  his 
body"  (that  of  Paul)  *'to  the  sick  handker- 
chiefs and  aprons,  and  the  diseases  departed  from 
them,  and  the  wicked  spirits  went  out  of  them." 

May  I  ask,  why,  if  such  things  happened 
then,  they  should  not  also  happen  now  ?  That 
they  do  happen,  we  have  the  most  ample  evi- 
dence.    But  more  about  this  later. 

Of  course,  the  Catholic  Church  understands, 
and  teaches  her  children,  that  miraculous  favors 
given  by  means  of  relics,  or  in  any  other  way, 
are  primarily  for  the  glory  of  God  and  of  His 
saints,  and  do  not  come  as  a  matter  of  course, 
or  infallibly,  by  the  use  of  certain  external 
means ;  and  also  that  they  must,  as  a  rule,  be 


The  Veneration  of  the  Saints,  183 

accompanied  or  even  preceded  by  good  and 
holy  dispositions  on  the  part  of  those  who  re- 
ceive them.  But  human  frailty  or  wickedness 
does  not  always  attend  to  this  salutary  teach- 
ing, and  abuses  these  supernatural  gifts,  losing 
the  benefit  of  them,  as  it  does  also  with  the 
natural  gifts  and  blessings  of  God ;  but  that  is 
not  the  fault  of  God,  nor  is  it  that  of  the 
Church,  which  labors  to  remove  and  prevent 
these  dangerous  and  scandalous  errors. 

But  now  you  have  another  objection.  You 
say  that  there  is  a  vast  amount  of  fraud  about 
this  business  of  relics ;  for  example,  that  there 
are  more  relics  of  the  true  Cross  than  would 
make  a  great  many  crosses  of  that  size ;  and 
that  this  fraud  is  endorsed  by  the  Church. 

I  will  ask  you  to  take  the  example  cited,  and 
make  a  simple  calculation  on  it.  I  think  you 
will  allow  that  the  cross  was  probably  equal  in 
bulk  to  a  beam  of  wood  200  inches  long,  6  wide, 
and  4  thick,  which  makes  4,800  cubic  inches. 
Now,  an  average  relic  of  the  true  cross  would 
not  exceed  a  piece  i-ioth  of  an  inch  each 
way ;  indeed,  this  would  really  much  exceed 
the  average.  But  even  at  this,  you  see  we 
would  have  4,800,000  such  relics,  or  one  to 
every  fifty  Catholics.  But  one  to  every  thou- 
sand would  come  nearer  to  the  proportion  of 
those  who  actually  have  them.  Indeed,  this 
would  be  a  considerable  over-estimate. 


184  The  Veneration  of  the  Saints, 

Again  3^ou  will  say,  *'  But  they  have  the  head 
of  such  a  saint  preserved  in  several  different 
places.  Here  is  certainly  an  unblushing  and 
obvious  fraud." 

You  make  this  objection  because  you  do  not 
understand  our  way  of  speaking  about  these 
matters.  Catholics  understand  well  enough 
that  by  the  head  is  meant  a  portion,  perhaps 
a  notable  portion,  of  the  head.  This  is  en- 
closed in  a  reliquary  representing  a  head,  and 
you  imagine  that  the  whole  head  is  supposed  to 
be  there ;  but  no  one  except  yourself  who  sees 
it  thinks  of  any  such  thing. 

That  there  should  be,  however,  some  mis- 
takes about  relics  is  obviously  unavoidable, 
and  the  unscrupulous,  no  doubt,  will  attempt 
frauds,  and  sometimes  succeed.  But  the 
Church  has  always  taken  great  care,  and 
takes  more  and  more  every  3^ear,  to  prevent 
this  ;  and  does  not  give  certificates  of  genuine- 
ness, or  * '  authentics, "  as  we  call  them,  to  any 
relics  without  careful  examination  by  competent 
and  learned  officials. 

I  think  you  will  see  that  there  is  nothing  un- 
reasonable about  this  devotion;  but  if  any 
Catholic  does  not  take  interest  in  it,  he  cer- 
tainly is  not  obliged  to.  Nor  is  any  one  re- 
quired to  pray  habitually  to  the  saints,  as  long 
as  he  does  not  object  to  it  on  principle  ;  and  to 
fail  to  ever  do  so  would  seem  to  imply  such  an 


The  Remainder  of  the  Profession.        185 

objection,  as,  for  instance,  if  one  should  refuse 
to  say  a  * '  Hail  Mary  ' '  now  and  then  ;  for  this 
prayer  has  the  highest  possible  sanction,  both 
directly  by  the  Church  and  by  Catholic  feeling 
and  practice ;  and  to  ignore  it  could  hardly 
mean  anything  but  heresy  on  the  part  of  the 
person  so  acting. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 

THK   RKMAINDE:r   of  THE   PROFESSION. 

THE  remainder  of  the  profession  is  princi- 
pally occupied  with  matters  which  have 
already  been  discussed.  I  have  already  treated 
at  some  length  of  the  great  and  decisive  au- 
thority which  we  attach  to  the  Scriptures,  or 
the  Bible,  and  the  way  in  which  we  believe  that 
this  Word  of  God  should  be  read  and  under- 
stood. 

By  the  '  *  Apostolic  and  Ecclesiastical  Tradi- 
tions ' '  is  understood  the  traditions  which  have 
come  down  to  us,  by  word  of  mouth  or  by  un- 
inspired writings,  with  regard  to  the  faith  of  the 
Church.  That  these  are  of  value,  and  are  rec- 
ognized as  being  so  in  the  Bible  itself  (II.  Thess. 
ii.  14),  where  we  read:  ''Therefore,  brethren, 
stand  fast ;  and  hold  the  traditions  which  you 
have    learned,    whether  by   word,    or    by    our 


1 86        The  Remainder  of  the  Profession, 

epistle.'^  Also  (II.  Tim.  ii.  2)  we  find  :  ''  And 
the  things  which  thou  hast  heard  of  me  by 
many  witnesses,  the  same  commend  to  faithful 
men,  who  shall  be  fit  to  teach  others  also." 

It  is  perfectly  in  accordance  with  reason, 
common  sense,  and  the  necessities  of  the  case, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  actual  facts  of  history, 
that  the  teaching  of  the  faith  in  the  first  few 
centuries  should  have  been  mainly  oral,  and 
that  tradition  should  have  been,  as  it  actually 
was,  the  main  guide  of  the  faithful,  especially 
during  the  ages  of  persecution.  In  later  times 
we  do  not  depend  on  it  so  much,  as  the  Scrip- 
tures are  so  easily  accessible,  and  the  decisions 
of  the  Church  so  abundant. 

The  profession  now  proceeds  to  include  gen- 
erally the  other  matters  of  faith  resting  on  the 
decrees  of  the  Church,  specially  those  made  in 
the  General  Councils.  Of  these  twenty-one 
are  recognized,  as  follows  ;  the  places  and  dates 
are  given : 


I. — Nicsea  or  Nice  I.,    .         .     A 

.D.  325 

2. — Constantinople  I.,    . 

'       381 

3. — Ephesus, 

'       431 

4. — Chalcedon, 

'       451 

5. — Constantinople  II., 

'       553 

6. — Constantinople  III., 

680-81 

7. — Nice  II., 

'       787 

8. — Constantinople  IV., 

869-70 

The  Remainder  of  the  Profession,        187 


9. — Rome  (Lateran)  I.,         .A. 

D.  1123 

10 

— Rome  (I^ateran)  II.,        .        ' 

'     1139 

II 

— Rome  (I^ateran)  III.,      .        ' 

'     1179 

12 

— Rome  (lyateran)  IV.,      .        ' 

'     1215 

13 

— Ivyons  I.,          .         .         .        ' 

'     1245 

14 

— Lyons  II.,        .         .         .        * 

'     1274 

15 

— Vienne,   .         .         .         .        * 

'     1311 

16 

— Constance,       .         .         .        * 

'     1417-18 

17 

—Basle,       .         .         .         .        ' 

'     1431 

18 

— Florence,          .         .         .        ' 

'     1439-45 

19 

— Rome  (lyateran)  V.,         .        ' 

'     1512-17 

20 

—Trent,      .         .         .         .        * 

'     1545-63 

21 

— Rome  (Vatican),     .         .        * 

'     1869-70 

These  councils  were  composed  of  bishops 
gathered  from  all  parts  of  the  Catholic  world. 
All  Catholic  bishops  are  invited  to  such  as- 
semblies, and  have  a  vote  on  the  matters  dis- 
cussed. The  last  two  are  specially  mentioned 
in  the  profession  as  treating  of  matters  more 
controverted  now  by  Christians  in  general. 
The  Council  of  Trent  was  called  on  account 
of  the  Protestant  Reformation ;  it  defined  the 
dogmas  of  faith  which  were  impugned  by  the 
Protestants,  and  effected  various  reforms  in  the 
matter  of  Church  discipline ;  there  were  corrup- 
tions and  evil  practices  which  had  crept  in, 
and  really  needed  reformation  ;  and  this  true 
reformation  of  the  Church  was  thus  legitimately 
and  quite  thoroughly  effected. 


1 88        The  Remainder  of  the  Profession, 

The  Council  of  the  Vatican  was  opened  by 
Pius  IX.  on  December  8,  1869;  it  was  ad- 
journed in  the  following  year  on  account  of  the 
troubles  of  the  times,  which  culminated  in  the 
seizure  of  Rome  on  September  20  of  that  year 
by  the  troops  of  Victor  Kmanuel,  King  of  Italy. 
In  this  council  various  matters  concerning  the 
primitive  truths  of  religion  were  defined  against 
modern  infidelity,  and  the  infallibility  of  the 
Pope,  as  it  has  been  explained  above,  was 
solemnly  declared. 

In  assenting  to  and  accepting  the  decrees  of 
these  councils,  and  therefore,  also,  specially  on 
account  of  the  decision  just  mentioned,  the  de- 
crees of  the  Pope  himself  when  he  solemnly  and 
formally  teaches  the  faith  to  the  Christian 
world,  we  simply  make  a  logical  and  reasonable 
act.  It  is  not  necessary,  in  order  to  accept  and 
believe  what  God  teaches  us  by  the  means 
which  He  has  established,  that  we  should  know 
precisely  what  it  is  that  He  teaches.  We  be- 
lieve it  beforehand,  just  in  the  same  way,  but 
with  a  far  higher  degree  of  certainty,  as  a  jury 
believes  in  the  testimony  of  a  witness  of  un- 
impeachable character,  before  he  opens  his  lips 
to  give  it. 

It  is,  however,  the  desire  of  the  Church  that 
we  and  all  the  world  should  know  just  what 
our  faith  teaches  us  on  every  point.  Our  Di- 
vine lyord  committed  His  doctrine  to  His  dis- 


The  Remainder  of  the  Profession,        1 89 

ciples  secretly,  but  He  instructed  them  to  pro- 
claim it  publicly.  ''That  which  I  tell  you  in 
the  dark,  speak  ye  in  the  light,"  said  He  ; 
* '  and  that  which  you  hear  in  the  ear,  preach 
ye  upon  the  house-tops." 

This  the  apostles  did  ;  and  though  for  a  time 
it  became  absolutely  necessary,  on  account  of 
persecution,  to  observe  some  secrecy  (for 
Christ  Himself  had  said,  *'  Give  not  that  which 
is  holy  to  dogs  ;  neither  cast  ye  your  pearls  be- 
fore swine,  lest  perhaps  they  trample  them  under 
their  feet,  and  turning  upon  you,  they  tear 
you"),  such  is  not  the  case  now.  There  is 
nothing  which  we  need  or  wish  to  keep  back  of 
what  we  believe,  either  with  regard  to  Catholic 
faith  or  practice  ;  and  in  what  follows  I  propose 
to  explain  some  points  which  have  not  been 
spoken  of  in  this  profession. 

Before  proceeding  to  these,  however,  I  wish 
to  remark  on  some  words  which  may  give  a 
false  impression  in  the  concluding  sentence,  in 
which  it  is  said,  "  I  detest  and  abjure  every 
error,  heresy,  and  sect."  By  this  is  meant  not 
that  we  detest  any  person  who  does  not  em- 
brace our  faith,  or  detest  any  sect  in  the  sense 
that  we  hate  the  persons  belonging  to  it ;  but 
that  we  detest  heresy — that  is,  we  hate  the  false- 
hood which  is  contrary  to  the  truth,  and  also 
the  spirit  of  denial  of  what  one  knows  to  be  the 
truth,  for   that   is   heresy,   properly  so-called ; 


1 90        The  Remainder  of  the  Profession, 

and  that  we  detest  the  separation  of  what 
Christ  said  should  be  ' '  one  fold  and  one  shep- 
herd "  (John  X.  16),  into  various  bodies  otit  of 
harmony  with  each  other  and  with  separate  in- 
stitutions and  governments,  as  being  a  thing  in 
itself  wrong  and  displeasing  to  God  ;  but  not 
that  we  hate  the  individuals  who  have  been  un- 
fortunately in  this  way  alienated  from  the  visi- 
ble communion  of  Christ's  Church. 

I  shall  also  now  treat  of  the  opening  words  or 
preamble  of  the  profession  which  you  remember 
I  passed  by  at  the  natural  place.  Some  part  of 
what  has  been  said  in  the  course  of  our  ex- 
planation seems  to  be  properly  required  to  un- 
derstand this  preamble  fully ;  or  at  least  we  are 
now  better  prepared  to  understand  it  than  we 
should  have  been  then.  It  propounds  a  doc- 
trine which  gives  difficulty  to  many  ;  that  is, 
that  ' '  no  one  can  be  saved  without  that  faith 
which  the  Holy  Catholic  Apostolic  Roman 
Church  holds,  believes,  and  teaches." 

Now  the  question  is,  what  precisely  is  meant 
by  this  ?  It  certainly  seems  plainly  contrary  to 
w^hat,  as  has  been  said  before,  we  must  admit 
as  an  evident  fact ;  namely,  that  the  holy 
patriarchs,  prophets,  and  saints  of  the  Old 
Testament  have  always  been  believed  to  have 
been  saved,  and  probably  many  others  also, 
who  lived  in  those  times,  when  they  could  not 
possibly  have  held  this  faith,  for  the  very  good 


The  Remainder  of  the  Profession,        191 

reason  that  it  had  not  then  been  made  known 
to  the  world.  So  that  they  do  not  come  under 
the  general  statement  made  here. 

But  if  we  examine,  we  see  at  least  that  we 
need  not  concern  ourselves  with  this  seeming 
difficulty,  for  it  is  only  said  ' '  no  one  can  be 
saved,"  not  ''no  one  ever  could  have  been 
saved."  It  is,  then,  at  any  rate  only  a  question 
of  the  way  in  which  we  can  be  saved  at  the  pres- 
ent time. 

But  it  has  been  already  shown,  in  our  dis- 
cussion of  the  article  of  the  profession  concern- 
ing ''  everlasting  life,"  that  there  can  hardly  be 
a  difference  between  those  who  are  now  living 
entirely  out  of  the  reach  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  and  those  who  lived  before  our  Lord 
came  down  from  heaven.  For  both  the  Catho- 
lic faith  is  equally  impossible.  And  the  same 
may  be  said  for  those  (and  there  may  be  a 
good  many  such)  who,  though  they  have  in- 
deed heard  that  there  is  an  institution  called 
the  Catholic  or  Roman  (perhaps  they  have 
known  it  as  the  Romish)  Church,  still  have  no 
suspicion  whatever  that  it  can  possibly  be  the 
true  Church  established  by  God  on  earth.  All 
these  people,  whether  the  obstacle,  so  to  speak, 
between  them  and  the  Church  be  time,  space, 
or  a  prejudice  for  which  they  are  in  no  way  to 
blame,  are  said  to  be  in  '*  invincible  ignorance  " 
of  the  true  faith,  and  we  believe  that  they  may 


192        The  Remainder  of  the  Profession, 

be  saved,  if  they  are  faithful  to  the  light  and 
the  means  of  grace  they  have,  even  if  these  are 
not  sufficient  to  bring  them  into  the  true 
Church  before  they  die. 

What  is  meant,  therefore,  by  saying  that  no 
one  can  be  saved  without  the  faith  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  is  not  that  an  explicit  knowledge  of 
this  faith  is  absolutely  necessary,  but  that  no 
one  can  presume  to  dispense  with  it,  to  take 
something  else  in  its  place,  or  to  say,  as  so 
many  do,  that  it  makes  no  difference  what  a 
man  believes,  as  long  as  his  life  is  right.  This 
last  idea,  plausible  as  it  vSeems  to  many,  is 
obviously  absurd  ;  for  it  assumes  either  that  a 
man's  life  can  be  right  when  he  is  indifferent  as 
to  whether  he  knows  or  does  God's  will  or  not ; 
or  that  it  is  impossible  there  can  be  any  truth 
revealed  from  heaven  to  show  us  how  to  live, 
and  that  all  the  information  needed  on  that 
subject  is  not  only  attainable  by  our  reason  but 
even  actually  now  in  the  possession  of  every 
human  being.  One  might  as  well  say,  ''  It 
makes  no  difference  whether  a  sea-captain  has 
a  compass  and  sextant  or  not,  as  long  as  he 
makes  a  straight  track  for  the  port  he  wishes  to 
reach."  Very  true,  no  doubt;  but  how  is  he 
going  to  lay  his  course  correctly  unless  he  has 
the  instruments  which  enable  him  to  do  so  ?  If 
he  has  lost  his  instruments,  or  is  unable  to  pro- 
cure anything  of  the  kind,  God  may  be  merci- 


The  Remainder  of  the  Profession,        193 

ful  to  him  and  bring  him  safe  to  port  without 
them;  but  to  say,  "I  don't  care  about  instru- 
ments, I  can  get  along  all  right  without,'*  is 
simply  fool-hardiness.  Just  so  it  is  fool-hardi- 
ness for  any  one  to  say,  "  I  can  save  my  soul 
without  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  I  don't 
care  whether  it  is  true  or  not."  If  he,  through 
the  fault  of  his  ancestors,  has  lost  sight  of  the 
faith  altogether,  or  if  he  has  always  lived  in 
some  remote  part  of  the  world  to  which  it  has 
not  penetrated,  he  may  be  saved  like  the  igno- 
rant mariner,  by  a  special  mercy  of  God  ;  but 
this  special  mercy  cannot  be  expected  if,  when 
the  faith  is  attainable,  he  neglects  to  avail  him- 
self of  it.  He  is  then  like  the  captain  who, 
passing  through  the  city  where  instruments  can 
be  got,  neglects  to  procure  them,  though  he  has 
the  money  in  his  pocket. 

So  you  see  that  what  is  meant  by  saying  that 
no  one  can  be  saved  without  the  Catholic  faith, 
is  substantially  the  same  as  saying  that  no  one 
can  reach  his  port  safely  without  instruments. 
No  one  can  be  saved  without  it ;  that  is,  no  one 
can  be  saved  who  wilfully  rejects  or  neglects  it. 

But  it  must  also  be^  said  that  salvation  is 
difficult  for  those  who,  even  without  their  own 
fault,  are  deprived  of  the  faith,  just  as  naviga- 
tion is  difficult  for  the  seanlan  even  without  his 
fault,  deprived  of  what  he  needs,  or  success  im- 
probable in  any  handiwork  without  the  proper 


194        The  Remainder  of  the  Profession. 

tools.  For  one  inculpably  ignorant  of  the  faith, 
though  not  punished  for  that,  is  yet  necessarily 
deprived  of  the  great  aids  which  it  furnishes  for 
the  forgiveness  and  the  prevention  of  sin  in 
general.  He  is,  like  other  people,  conceived 
and  born  in  original  sin  ;  ordinarily  this  is  only 
removed  by  baptism.  Christ  Himself  says : 
""  Amen,  amen  I  say  to  thee,  unless  a  man  be 
born  again  of  water  and  the  Holy  Ghost,  he 
cannot  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God  " 
(John  iii.  5).  Still,  the  Church  believes  that 
those  for  whom  baptism  is  practically  impossi- 
ble can  be  saved  if  they  have  sufficiently  per- 
fect dispositions,  loving  and  turning  to  God 
with  their  whole  heart.  This  we  call  the  bap- 
tism of  desire. 

But  even  should  original  and  actual  sin  be 
taken  away  in  this  manner,  still  the  temptation 
to  sin  remains,  and  the  weakness  to  resist 
which  original  sin,  and  perhaps  actual  sin  also, 
has  caused.  This  is  the  case  with  baptized 
Christians  also,  and  with  Catholics  as  well  as 
others.  A  battle,  it  may  be  a  long  and  a  hard 
one,  has  to  be  fought  with  sin  before  the  king- 
dom of  heaven  can  be  won.  But  the  Catholic 
in  this  battle  is  helped  and  fortified  by  the 
Sacraments,  to  which  the  unbaptized  have  no 
access,  and  of  which  the  Protestant  is  prac- 
tically ignorant.  For  we  believe,  and  facts 
which  we  cannot  properly  discuss  in  a  book  of 


The  Remainder  of  the  Profession.        195 

this  kind  justify  us  in  believing,  that  there 
are  no  valid  clerical  orders  among  Protestants 
properly  so-called,  except  in  some  rare  in- 
stances ;  the  ProtCvStant,  then,  even  though  he 
be  validly  baptized,  has  no  access  to  the  Sacra- 
ment of  Penance ;  ■  and  indeed  few  Protestants 
make  any  endeavor  to  avail  themselves  of  it. 
If  then,  after  once  receiving  the  grace  of  God 
he  should  be  so  unfortunate,  as  is  only  too  pro- 
bable, to  fall  into  mortal  sin,  it  must  be  for- 
given him  without  this  great  help  ;  this  is  in- 
deed possible,  but  it  is  comparatively  difiicult, 
as  will  be  seen  more  clearly  later.  Then  there 
is  for  him  no  Real  Body  and  Blood  of  Christ  in 
the  Holy  Eucharist  to  strengthen  him  and  give 
renewed  life  to  his  soul.  ^'  Except  you  eat  the 
flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood, 
you  shall  not  have  life  in  you,"  says  our  Lord 
(John  vi.  54);  and  though  no  one  can  well  hold 
that  salvation  is  impossible  without  the  actual 
reception  of  Holy  Communion,  still  no  doubt  it 
is  for  Catholics  practically  necessary  for  the 
nourishment  of  the  soul,  for  the  extirpation  of 
vicious  habits  and  the  formation  of  solid  virtue, 
and  for  perseverance  to  the  end,  on  which 
everything  depends.  And  if  it  is  so  for  Catho- 
lics, why  not  for  others  as  well? 

Again,  the  Protestant  has  no  Sacrament  of 
Confirmation  by  which  to  receive  the  permanent 
grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  make  his  faith  solid 


196        The  Remainder  of  the  Profession. 

and  firm  against  the  assaults  of  the  enemy  ;  no 
Sacrament  of  Extreme  Unction,  to  prepare  him 
for  his  last  combat.  He  has  to  leave  the  world, 
as  our  great  poet  says,  * '  unhouseled,  dis- 
appointed, unaneled";  how  many  chances  are 
against  him,  even  though  he  be  in  perfectly 
good  faith  about  his  religion,  and  trying  to  do 
his  very  best ! 

These  difficulties  of  which  I  have  spoken  do 
not  exist  to  the  same  extent  in  those  churches 
which,  like  the  Greek  and  other  Oriental  ones, 
have  retained  valid  orders,  and  have,  except  in 
what  would  now  be  considered  by  people  in 
general  as  matters  of  small  consequence,  the 
same  doctrine  as  the  Catholic  Church.  What 
separates  them  from  us  is  principally  what  we 
call  schism,  for  which  their  individual  members 
can  hardly,  as  a  rule,  be  to  blame,  and  which 
moreover  has  not  deprived  them  of  the  means 
of  grace  established  in  the  Church.  Russian 
soldiers,  for  instance,  were  attended  by  French 
priests  in  the  Crimean  war  ;  they  had  always 
been  accustomed  to  receive  the  sacraments,  and 
expected  them  at  the  hour  of  death  as  they 
had  during  life. 

You  see  now,  I  think,  what  is  meant  by  our 
saying  that  no  one  can  be  saved  without  the 
faith  which  the  Catholic  Church  teaches. 
Principally  that  no  one  can  be  saved  by  some 
so-called  faith  or  opinion  which  he  selects  for 


The  Remainder  of  the  Profession,        197 

himself,  knowing  or  suspecting  that  the  Church 
established  by  Christ  proposes  something  else 
to  him  ;  secondarily,  that  without  the  means  of 
salvation  placed  in  the  Church  by  Christ,  salva- 
tion is  extremely  difficult.  And  it  would  be 
even  more  difficult  probably  than  it  actually  is, 
were  it  not  that  to  those  who  are  without  any 
fault  of  their  own  deprived  of  these  means  of 
salvation,  God  in  His  mercy  makes  the  combat 
somewhat  easier,  as  it  would  seem ;  taking 
aw^ay  from  such,  perhaps,  some  of  the  tempta- 
tions to  which  they  might  otherwise  be  ex- 
posed, or,  as  we  may  say,  '*  tempering  the  wind 
to  the  shorn  lamb."  For  He  '^will  have  all 
men  to  be  saved,  and  to  come  to  the  knowledge 
of  the  truth  "  (I.  Tim.  ii.  4),  at  least  so  far  as 
it  is  morally  possible  for  them. 

There  is  another  article  in  this  preamble 
which  is  likely  to  give  difficulty  ;  that  in  which 
it  is  said,  "  I  am  ready  to  observe  all  she  com- 
mands me."  To  the  consideration  of  this  we 
will  devote  a  separate  chapter. 


CHAPTKR  XVII. 

THK.PRKCKPTS   OF    THK   CHURCH. 

AS  you  read  the  words  just  mentioned,  **I 
am  ready  to  observe  all  she  commands 
me,"  I  should  not  be  at  all  surprised  if  they 
suggested  most  unpleasant  ideas.  They  really 
must  seem,  to  one  having  the  usual  prejudices 
against  the  Church,  to  mean  that  every  Catholic 
must  be  ready  to  undertake  any  duty  which  it 
may  please  the  Pope,  or  the  bishop,  or  any  one 
else  who  is  his  lord  and  master,  to  assign  him 
to.  He  might  be  required,  for  instance,  to 
blow  up  the  Capitol  or  the  White  House,  or 
to  poison  his  own  father  or  mother ;  very  well, 
if  the  Church  commands  this,  these  words 
would  seem  to  settle  the  question.  He  would 
have,  if  we  take  them  in  the  sense  in  which 
they  might  easily  be  taken  by  Protestants,  to 
go  right  to  work  and  do  what  he  was  told,  with- 
out any  fuss  or  scruple. 

But  though  this  idea  may  seem  natural 
enough,  in  reality  it  is  nothing  but  a  mon- 
strous bugbear.  Catholics  would  be  amused  at 
any  such  sense  being  taken  from  the  declara- 
tion or  promise  of  which  we  are  speaking.     For 

every  Catholic  man  knows  that  there  is  no  such 

198 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  199 

personal  authority  which  issues  special  com- 
mands to  him.  The  priest  of  his  own  parish  is 
the  nearest  approach  to  such  an  authority  ;  but 
whatever  commands  he  has  to  give  are  given 
out  in  public  in  the  church,  and  are  simply  in- 
structions or  requests  to  join  in  some  good  work 
which  is  on  foot,  in  which  every  one  should  help 
according  to  his  opportunities. 

You  will,  however,  say  that  at  least  the 
priest  gives  injunctions  of  a  personal  character 
in  the  confessional.  This  is  true,  of  course. 
But  the  commands  or  directions  there  given 
have  reference  only  to  the  good  of  the  soul  of 
the  penitent ;  they  are  either  to  the  effect  that 
he  must  give  up  his  sins,  or  the  occasions  of 
sin — that  is  to  say,  the  places,  persons,  or  occu- 
pations which  are  causes  of  sin  to  him ;  or  they 
are  the  prescribing  to  him  of  certain  prayers  or 
pious  works  by  way  of  what  we  call  penance, 
to  be  offered  up  in  atonement  or  satisfaction  for 
sins,  according  to  what  has  been  said  in  the 
previous  chapter  on  purgatory. 

Now,  I  know  all  this  may  be  very  different 
from  your  idea  of  the  relation  between  priest 
and  people.  You  are  accustomed  to  regard  the 
people  as  being  what  Protestants  call  ' '  priest- 
ridden."  The  fact  is  that  it  is  really  the  other 
way.  The  people  are  not  priest-ridden,  but  the 
priest  is  people-ridden.  He  is,  if  he  have  any 
relations  with  the  people  at  all,  pretty  much  at 


200  The  Precepts  of  the  Church, 

their  beck  and  call,  without  any  time  he  can 
call  his  own ;  it  is  they  who  are  issuing  their 
commands  to  him,  to  go  on  this  or  that  sick- 
call,  to  hear  and  advise  them  in  their  troubles  or 
in  their  business,  to  baptize  their  children,  or  to 
hear  their  confessions.  The  priest,  especially 
in  any  large  city  parish,  is  really  the  slave  of 
the  people  ;  bound  to  attend  to  the  interests  of 
each  and  every  one  of  them  at  all  hours  of  the 
day  and  night,  and  getting  in  return  a  salary 
which  only  just  suffices  for  his  maintenance, 
and  which  no  man,  even  though  unmarried 
like  the  priest,  would  think  of  working  for  if 
he  had  the  ability  and  education  which  a  priest 
necessarily  must  have. 

This  is  really  the  whole  fact  of  the  matter  in 
a  nutshell.  But  it  is  a  simple  matter  of  fact, 
not  deducible  from  any  principle ;  it  might  be 
the  other  way,  and  probably  would  be  the  other 
way  were  the  Church  not  a  divine  institution, 
animated  and  operated  by  the  Spirit  of  God, 
which  can  and  does  inspire  man  to  make  sacri- 
fices which  he  could  not  make  naturally.  To 
prove,  then,  that  it  is  a  fact,  I  can  only  give 
you  my  own  testimony,  which  is  also  that  of 
others  who  know  what  the  state  of  the  case  is. 
And  I  do  not  say  that  there  have  not  been,  or 
that  there  are  not  now  exceptions  to  what  I 
have  given  as  a  rule.  Sometimes  a  priest,  in 
spite  of  his  holy  calling,  may  be  worldly ;  and 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  20 1 

he  may  be  ambitious  and  tyrannical ;  and  if  he 
wishes  to  be  so,  he  has  some  opportunity,  on 
account  of  the  love  and  respect  which  good 
Catholics  have  for  the  priesthood,  though  he 
cannot  carry  such  conduct  far  without  correc- 
tion from  his  bishop.  But  that  in  any  case,  by 
his  own  authority  or  that  of  his  superiors,  he 
issues  special  orders  to  the  laity,  employing 
them  either  individually  or  collectively  in  the 
nefarious  schemes  which  exist  only  in  the 
Protestant  imagination,  is  utterly  untrue  and 
absurd. 

But  the  matter  must,  as  I  have  said,  rest  on 
testimony.  If  you  will  not  take  that,  it  can  be 
settled  in  no  other  way  except  by  your  coming 
into  the  Church  yourself,  and  seeing  for  your- 
self how  things  are.  So,  having  done  all  I  can 
to  remove  this  false  impression,  I  will  proceed 
to  give  you  the  true  meaning  of  these  words  in 
the  profession  of  which  we  are  speaking.  It 
may  be  observed,  however,  that  they  do  not  re- 
quire the  convert  to  do  all  that  the  priest  tells 
him,  but  only  what  the  Chtirch  itself  tells  him  ; 
so  if  you  are  not  sure,  after  all,  that  what  I 
have  said  is  correct,  there  is  at  least  this  to  fall 
back  on. 

Now,  then ;  what  does  the  Church  command 
us  ?  Only  a  very  few  and  simple  things.  They 
are  commonly  called  by  Catholics  the  ''precepts 
of  the  Church,"  and  they  are  as  follows  : 


202  The  Precepts  of  the  Church, 

1.  To  hear  Mass  on  Sundays,  and  all  holy- 
days  of  obligation. 

2.  To  fast  and  abstain  on  the  days  com- 
manded. 

3.  To  confess  our  sins  at  least  once  a  year. 

4.  To  receive  the  blessed  EucharivSt  at 
Easter. 

5.  To  contribute  to  the  support  of  our 
pastors. 

6.  Not  to  solemnize  marriage  at  the  forbidden 
times ;  nor  to  marry  persons  within  the  forbid- 
den degrees  of  kindred,  or  otherwise  prohibited 
by  the  Church  ;    nor  clandestinely. 

A  short  explanation  of  these  precepts  will 
now  be  in  order.  i.  The  first  regards  the 
sanctification  of  Sundays  and  holydays.  It  is 
a  fixing  with  precision  of  the  matter  com- 
manded in  the  Decalogue.  As  the  command- 
ment stands  there,  it  is,  '*  Remember  that  thou 
keep  holy  the  Sabbath  day."  The  manner  of 
keeping  the  Sabbath  holy  among  the  Israelites 
was  principally  by  abstaining  from  work.  Be- 
sides the  Sabbaths,  other  holy  times  were  desig- 
nated by  Moses  (lycv.  xxiii.),  namely,  the 
phase,  pasch  or  passover,  the  day  of  atone- 
ment, and  the  feast  of  tabernacles.  To  these 
others  were  subsequently  added  by  the  Jewish 
Church  or  Synagogue ;  and  besides  the  abstain- 
ing from  work,  sacrifices  and  other  religious 
observances  were  enjoined. 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  203 

Now,  the  precise  times  to  be  sanctified  and 
the  manner  of  the  sanctification  have  evidently 
been  much  changed  in  the  New  Dispensation. 
One  thing  especially  is  manifest,  that  by  the 
general  consent  of  almost  all  Christians,  the  first 
day  of  the  week  is  the  one  now  to  be  kept  holy, 
not  the  seventh,  as  formerly.  We  observe  Sun- 
day as  the  day  for  worship  and  for  rest,  not  Sat- 
urday, as  in  the  Old  Law.  Evidently,  also,  the 
sacrifices  enjoined  by  the  Old  Law  are  no 
longer  offered.  It  is  clear,  then,  that  unless 
some  great  and  horrible  mistake  has  been  made, 
which  can  be  hardly  regarded  as  possible,  these 
changes  have  been  made  in  accordance  with  the 
will  of  God,  and  by  competent  authority.  This 
authority  Catholics  believe  to  have  been  that  of 
the  Church  of  Christ ;  and  as  nothing  is  re- 
corded in  the  Scripture  as  having  been  distinct- 
ly arranged  by  our  Lord  Himself  in  the  matter, 
we  are  really  obliged  to  rest  our  present  observ- 
ance practically  on  the  word  of  the  Church,  as 
contained  either  in  distinct  documents  or  in 
ecclesiastical  tradition. 

It  is,  then,  somewhat  strange  that  in  the  face 
of  these  manifest  changes,  acquiesced  in  by 
almost  all  Christians,  Protestants  should  still 
make  so  much  of  the  letter  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment with  regard  to  this  matter;  that  they 
should  call  Sunday  the  Sabbath,  and  maintain 
that   everything   regarding   the   Sabbath    must 


204  T^^^^  Precepts  of  the  Church 

now  be  observed  on  Sunday.  And  it  is  stranger 
still  that  they  should  have  added  a  tradition  of 
their  own,  forbidding  any  sort  of  recreation  on 
that  day,  when  it  is  not  recreation,  but  work, 
that  was  prohibited  in  the  Old  Law.  The  nat- 
ural meaning  of  work  is  something  which  is 
laborious  or  tiresome  ;  if  we  stretch  it  farther 
than  that,  we  must,  unless  it  can  be  interpreted 
in  some  way  for  us,  conclude  that  every  move- 
ment of  the  body  or  exercise  of  the  mind  is 
work,  and  then  the  only  thing  left  is  to  go  to  bed. 

And  we  do  not  find  in  the  Bible  that  even 
religious  observances  of  any  kind  are  enjoined 
on  the  Sabbath.  It  was  evidently  fitting  that 
there  should  be  such,  and  such  was  the  reason- 
able interpretation  made  by  the  Jews  of  the  law 
of  Moses;  but  taking  the  letter  of  Scripture,  as 
they  involve  work,  they  also  should  have  been 
omitted. 

The  fact  is,  that  the  Church  of  the  Old  Law 
construed  and  interpreted  this  commandment, 
though  it  is  clear  that  its  interprietation,  or  at 
least  that  of  the  Pharisees,  was  too  strict,  since 
our  Lord  Himself  disregarded  and  condemned  it 
in  various  instances,  as  in  curing  the  sick  on 
the  Sabbath  day,  and  plucking  and  rubbing  the 
ears  of  corn  (Luke  vi.  i).  It  also,  as  we  have 
seen,  instituted  new  holydays  (Judith  xvi. 
31,  Esther  ix.  27-28,  I.  Machabees  iv.  59"). 
Though  the  record  of  these  is  not  in  all  cases 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church.  205 

in  what  you  would  accept  as  the  Word  of  God, 
still  it  is  unquestioned  history;  the  last  feast, 
moreover,  is  mentioned  in  the  New  Testament 
(John  X.  22). 

If,  then,  the  Church  of  the  Old  Law  had  and 
exercised  these  powers  without  reproof  except 
for  a  too  strict  and  rigorous  interpretation,  why 
should  not  that  of  the  New  Law  have  a  similar 
authority  ? 

It  has  simply  followed  in  the  footsteps  of  the 
Synagogue  in  its  action.  The  greatest  change, 
or  new  departure,  was  in  the  substitution  of 
Sunday  for  Saturday,  in  honor  of  the  Resurrec- 
tion of  Christ,  intimated  (John  xx.  19,  and  Acts 
XX.  7,  I.  Cor.  xvi.  2),  and  adopted  by  Christians 
generally.  It  has  definitely  formulated  the  way 
of  observance  of  Sunday,  or  given  us  the  com- 
mands of  Christ  in  this  respect  not  recorded  in 
the  Bible  ;  and  if  its  regulations  as  to  this  mat- 
ter are  not  binding  on  us,  nothing  is,  as  those 
of  the  law  of  Moses  have  necessarily  disap- 
peared with  the  change  of  the  day.  It  has 
established  new  feasts  in  honor  of  the  principal 
events  and  mysteries  of  our  Redemption,  as  the 
Synagogue  of  the  Jews  did  for  the  principal 
events  of  God's  providence  toward  them.  What 
reasonable  objection  can  be  made  to  all  this? 

It  is  now  time  to  see  just  what  the  Church 
does  prescribe  concerning  Sundays  and  holy- 
days. 


2o6  The  Precepts  of  the  Church. 

First,  as  given  above,  the  attendance  at  Mass 
on  these  days.  The  Mass,  as  has  been  ex- 
plained, is  the  great  service  of  the  Church ;  it 
is  eminently  fitting  and  proper  that  this  should 
be  one  selected  as  of  obligation.  This  is  all 
that  is  absolutely  required  in  the  way  of  wor- 
ship on  these  days ;  it  is,  however,  the  desire 
of  the  Church  that  Catholics  should  spend  the 
rest  of  the  day  in  a  pious  and  religious  manner  ; 
and  particularly  that  they  should  also  attend 
the  afternoon  or  evening  service  known  as 
Vespers.  But  experience  shows  that  more 
than  the  attendance  at  Mass  cannot  be  pru- 
dently commanded  under  pain  of  sin. 

How,  then,  is  the  rest  of  the  day  to  be  spent  ? 
In  the  first  place,  servile  work  is  to  be  avoided. 
By  this  is  meant  fatiguing  labor  of  the  body, 
such  as  most  men  have  to  perform  during  the 
week  to  procure  their  daily  bread.  Mental 
work,  such  as  reading  or  writing,  is  not  forbid- 
den ;  neither  is  artistic  or  scientific  occupation  ; 
and  it  is  immaterial  whether  compensation  is 
or  is  not  expected  for  what  is  done.  But  one  is 
not  allowed  to  do  servile  work  for  satisfaction, 
for  exercise,  or  to  pass  away  the  time ;  this  is 
as  much  forbidden  as  that  done  for  pay  would 
be.  Recreation  or  play,  if  it  be  innocent,  is 
allowed ;  but  it  should  not  be  such  as  would 
interfere  with  the  public  worship  of  God,  or 
with  the  peace  of  those  who  wish  to  spend  the 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  207 

day  in  prayer  or  quiet ;  nor  should  it  be  such  as 
would  produce  excitement  or  fatigue.  The 
Church  is  always  opposed  to  noisy  and  excit- 
ing festivities,  particularly  on  Sunday,  and  of 
course  to  intoxication,  debauchery,  or  any 
amusement  which  would  probably  be  an  occa- 
sion of  sin.  All  these  latter  things  would  be 
wrong  on  any  day,  but  especially  on  a  day 
which  should  be  spent  in  a  closer  union  with 
God. 

Work,  however,  required  by  necessity,  piety, 
or  charity  is  allowed ;  such  as  the  cooking  of 
food,  the  daily  care  of  the  house,  preparation 
for  public  worship,  attendance  on  the  sick,  etc. 
It  is  unavoidable  also  that  some  should  work  in 
order  that  others  should  be  able  to  go  from 
place  to  place  for  reasonable  recreation  or  neces- 
sary business ;  and  also,  some  must  do  so  be- 
cause the  work  in  which  they  are  engaged  is 
of  a  character  that  cannot  be  altogether  sus- 
pended, as  the  care  of  furnaces  which  cannot, 
without  great  loss,  be  allowed  to  go  out.  And 
no  one  is  obliged  to  suspend  work  if  by  so 
doing  he  would  lose  his  occupation  and  have 
to  starve.  It  is  a  misfortune  that  such  should 
be  the  case  with  any  one  ;  but  as  things  actual- 
ly are  it  evidently  cannot  be  helped. 

Of  course,  excuse  for  one's  regular  work  on 
holydays  other  than  Sundays  is  much  more 
common,    as    abstinence    from    it,    unless    the 


2o8  The  Precepts  of  the  Church, 

country  were  all  Catholic,  would  be  probably 
attended  by  danger  of  losing  one's  occupation 
altogether.  All  are  expected,  however,  to  hear 
Mass  on  those  days,  if  a  Mass  is  provided  at  an 
hour  at  which  they  can  be  present  without 
great  inconvenience.  And  no  one  should  do 
servile  work  voluntarily  or  unnecessarily  on 
those  days  any  more  than  on  Sunday. 

In  this  country  there  are  only  a  few  such 
days  through  the  year ;  namely : 

1.  New  Year's  day. 

2.  Feast  of  the  Ascension  of  our  Lord. 

3.  Feast  of  the  Assumption  of  the  B.  V. 
(August  15). 

4.  Feast  of  All  Saints  (November  i). 

5.  Feast  of  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the 
B.  V.   (December  8). 

6.  Christmas  Day. 

The  first  and  last  of  these  are  pretty  generally 
recognized  as  public  holidays.  The  addition 
of' the  four  others  to  the  fifty-two  Sundays  of  the 
year  makes  really  very  little  difference. 

2.  The  second  precept  of  the  Church  con- 
cerns fasting  and  abstinence.  These  are  two 
different  things,  though  often  confounded,  even 
by  Catholics. 

By  '  *  abstinence  ' '  is  meant  abstaining  from 
flesh  meat.  All  the  world  knows  that  the 
regular  practice  of  good  Catholics  is  to  abstain 
from  meat  on  every  Friday.     The  only  excep- 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  209 

tion  to  this  is  when  Christmas  falls  on  that  day 
of  the  week.  This  Friday  abstinence  is'  of 
course,  in  commemoration  of  the  death  of 
Christ,  which  occurred  on  that  day.  It  is 
manifestly  fitting  that  Christians  should  under- 
go some  suffering  on  the  day  on  which  Christ's 
great  sufferings  were  endured. 

Protestants  are  not  usually  inclined  to  admit 
this,  however,  alleging  that  it  is  useless,  super- 
stitious, and  presumptuous  for  us  to  afflict  our- 
selves in  this  way,  and  that  it  derogates  from 
the  dignity  of  our  Saviour  to  have  us  put  our- 
selves in  His  place  in  this  way.  This  at  least 
seems  to  be  their  idea  in  opposing  it.  But  in 
this  they  are  contradicted  by  Christ  Himself; 
His  words  are  given  in  Matt.  ix.  15,  Mark  ii. 
20,  lyuke  V.  35.  When  He  was  asked  how  it 
was  that  His  disciples  did  not  fast  as  the  Jews 
did.  He  said  that  as  long  as  they  had  the  bride- 
groom (that  is,  evident^.  Himself)  with  them, 
they  could  not  fast ;  but  that  the  days  will  come 
when  the  bridegroom  shall  be  taken  away  from 
them  and  that  then  they  shall  fast.  And  such 
was  actually  the  case  from  the  earliest  ages  of 
the  Church.  Afflicting  the  body  by  depriva- 
tion of  food  and  other  means  is  no  modern  in- 
vention ;  on  the  contrary,  it  was  practised 
much  more  in  the  beginning  of  the  Church 
than  now.  St.  Paul  bears  witness  to  this 
most  clearly  when  he  says   (I.  Cor.  ix.  25-27): 


2IO  The  Precepts  of  the  Church. 

*  *  Every  one  that  striveth  for  the  mastery  re- 
fraineth  himself  from  all  things,  and  they  in- 
deed that  they  may  receive  a  corruptible  crown, 
but  we  an  incorruptible  one.  I  therefore  so 
run,  not  as  at  an  uncertainty  :  I  so  fight,  not  as 
one  beating  the  air.  But  I  chastise  my  body, 
and  bring  it  into  subjection,  lest  perhaps,  when 
I  have  preached  to  others,  I  myself  should  be- 
come a  castaway.*' 

In  these  words  of  St.  Paul  we  see  the  idea  of 
what  Catholics  call  bodily  mortification.  It  is 
different  from  that  of  penance  or  satisfaction,  of 
which  I  have  already  treated.  It  is  this  :  that 
most  of  our  temptations  to  evil  come  from  the 
lusts  or  desires  of  the  body  ;  that  our  sensual 
appetites  rise  up  in  rebellion  against  what  our 
souls  know  to  be  right  and  reasonable.  The 
body  endeavors,  so  to  speak,  to  assume  the 
mastery  over  the  soul,  and  too  often  succeeds, 
as,  for  example,  in  the  lamentable  case  of  the 
habitual  drunkard.  It  must  be  compelled, 
therefore,  to  take  its  proper  place,  as  the  ser- 
vant, not  the  master,  of  the  soul ;  and  the  only 
real  w^ay  to  do  this  is  to  deprive  it  of  even  what 
it  might  lawfully  have.  The  experience  of 
man  shows  that  unless  the  body  is  sometimes 
deprived  of  lawful  enjoyments,  the  soul  will  not 
be  able  to  refuse  it  unlawful  ones.  It  must  be 
accustomed  to  obey  simply  for  obedience's  sake. 

Those  Christians  who  have  a  strong  desire 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  211 

for  God,  and  wish  to  pass  much  of  their  time  in 
prayer  and  union  with  Him,  find  this  mortifica- 
tion necessary  in  a  higher  degree  than  the 
Church  requires  it  to  be  practised.  For  the 
body,  even  though  kept  in  reasonable  subjec- 
tion, is  still  with  its  various  needs  and  demands 
a  burden  and  a  distraction  to  the  soul,  and  the 
more  these  bodily  needs  can  be  lessened  the 
better.  The  soul  gains  at  the  expense  of  the 
body.  Holy  men  at  all  times  have  found  that 
by  treating  the  body  with  great  severity  its  de- 
mands can  be  much  lessened,  and  it  can  be 
made  indifferent  to  many  things  it  naturally 
craves ;  its  tastes  and  its  daintiness  can  be  over- 
come, and  the  soul  be  thus  freed  to  a  great  ex- 
tent from  attending  to  its  wants. 

We  may  put  the  matter  in  another,  and 
really  a  more  correct  way.  For  after  all  it  is 
not  the  body  of  itself  and  alone  that  desires 
♦satisfaction  or  pleasure  ;  it  is  the  soul  which 
desires  bodily  pleasure,  and  often  prefers  it  to 
that  which  is  higher  and  better.  By  resolutely 
turning  from  the  lower  pleasure  the  soul  is 
weaned  from  it,  and  the  appetite  and  desire  for 
the  higher  is  strengthened  in  it.  The  soul 
must  have  something  to  desire ;  and  the  more 
it  turns  from  the  world  and  its  pleasures, 
whether  bodily  or  otherwise,  the  more  it  desires 
those  things  which  the  world  cannot  give  or 
take  away  ;  the  less  it  seeks  tlie  creature  for  its 


212  The  Precepts  of  the  Church, 

own  sake,  the  more  will  it  seek  the  Creator. 
This  is  the  underlying  principle  of  all  mortifica- 
tion, which  may  be  applied  to  riches  and  honors 
as  well  as  to  bodily  needs. 

But  to  resume  our  explanation  of  the  particu- 
lar precept  of  the  Church  of  which  I  am  treat- 
ing. By  *' fasting"  is  meant  in  general  the 
deprivation  not  of  some  particular  kind  of  food, 
like  meat,  but  the  taking  less  food  than  the 
appetite  craves.  As  specially  formulated  by 
the  Church,  it  is  the  restricting  ourselves  to  one 
full  meal,  instead  of  taking  three  in  the  day. 
In  the  strict  rule  of  the  fast,  no  breakfast  or 
supper  is  allowed ;  this,  however,  has  been  so 
far  relaxed  as  to  permit  a  supper  of  eight  ounces 
weight,  and  a  cup  of  coffee  or  tea  with  two 
ounces  of  bread  in  the  morning.  The  fast  also 
properly  includes  abstinence  from  meat;  but 
in  Lent  dispensation  is  generally  given  for 
meat  several  times  a  week  at  dinner. 

Those  who  are  sick,  or  who  have  to  work 
hard,  those  under  twenty-one  or  over  sixty 
years  of  age,  and  some  others,  are  excused  from 
fasting  ;  excuse  from  abstinence  is  much  more 
difficult,  as  this  can  generally  be  observed  with- 
out detriment  to  health  or  unfitting  one  for 
work. 

3-4.  ^*To  confess  our  sins  at  least  once  a 
year"  ;  this  is  the  third  precept  of  the  Church. 
More  frequent   confession  than  this  is   recom- 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  213 


mended  by  the  Church,  but  yearly  confession 
is  required  by  this  positive  command  ;  so  that 
one  who  has  committed  grievous  sin,  and  passes 
over  this  time  without  confession,  which  must 
of  course  also  be  accompanied  by  repentance, 
commits  a  distinct  sin  by  this,  in  addition  to 
those  which  may  already  be  on  his  soul.  As, 
however,  confession  is  usually  followed  by  Holy 
Communion,  this  and  the  following  precept, 
that  of  receiving  the  Eucharist  at  Easter,  prac- 
tically fall  into  one,  that  of  making  what  we 
call  the  Easter  duty.  The  precept,  as  you  see 
it  here,  reads  **  at  Easter"  ;  but  as  it  would 
be  impossible  for  all  to  receive  Communion  on 
that  exact  day,  the  time  is  extended,  according 
to  the  regular  law  of  the  Church,  a  week  on 
each  side  ;  in  this  country  we  have  a  still  fur- 
ther extension,  namely,  from  the  first  Sunday 
in  Lent,  six  weeks  before  Easter,  to  Trinity 
Sunday,  eight  weeks  after  Easter ;  so  that  a 
time  of  fourteen  weeks,  or  more  than  a  quarter 
of  the  year,  is  allowed  here  for  this  duty. 
Every  Catholic  of  an  age  to  receive  Communion 
must  receive  at  some  time  during  this  period, 
no  matter  how  often  he  may  have  done  so  at 
other  times  during  the  year  that  has  passed. 
I  say  '*  every  Catholic  of  an  age  to  receive 
Communion  ' '  ;  and  here  it  will  be  well  to  say 
a  word  to  remove  a  false  impression  that  Prot- 
estants naturally   have.     With  them  only  cer- 


214  '^^^  Precepts  of  the  Church. 

tain  persons,  perhaps  a  small  proportion  of  the 
congregation,  are  communicants  ;  but  with  us 
it  is  not  so.  Every  Catholic  is,  by  the  right  of 
his  or  her  baptism,  usually  received  in  infancy, 
a  communicant ;  and  is  expected  to  make  his 
or  her  first  Communion  in  childhood,  usually  at 
about  the  age  of  ten  or  eleven,  and  to  receive 
regularly  after  that ;  once  a  month  is  what  is 
expected. 

Many,  however,  do  not  receive  as  often  as 
that,  especially  after  they  have  been  thrown 
into  the  temptations  and  distractions  of  the 
world ;  neither,  of  course,  do  they  go  to  con- 
fession. And  too  often  we  find  Catholics  who 
neglect  even  the  yearly  Easter  duty  of  which 
these  commandments  treat,  and  that  year  after 
year.  Protestants  do  not  seem  to  understand 
this  ;  they  take  for  granted  that  every  Catholic 
goes  to  confession  regularly,  and  then  ask  how 
is  it  that  they  confess  their  sins  and  still  go  on 
committing  such  grievous  ones  as,  of  course,  all 
know  that  some  Catholics,  as  well  as  others,  do 
commit.  They  seem  to  think  that  a  drunkard, 
a  thief,  or  one  living  in  evident  impurity,  if  he 
be  a  Catholic,  goes  to  confession  just  as  assidu- 
ously as  any  one  else.  In  fact,  such  a  proceed- 
ing would  be  almost  unheard  of.  Any  Catholic 
living  in  sin  which  he  has  not  really  made  up 
his  mind  to  abandon  would  not  get  absolution 
if  he  did  go  to  confession,  unless  he  imposed  on 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  21$ 

the  priest  by  a  pretended  repentance  ;  and  such 
hypocrisy  is  very  rare,  for  Catholics  have  a 
horror  of  making  a  bad  confession  or  Com- 
munion. Of  course  there  are  some  who  are 
really  struggling  against  sin,  who  do  go  to 
these  sacraments  with  some  frequency ;  but 
next  to  none  go  with  a  conscious  purpose  to  re- 
main just  as  they  are. 

That  many  should  keep 'their  faith,  and  re- 
main in  the  Church,  though  making  no  attempt 
to  lead  a  Christian  life,  was  distinctly  predicted 
by  our  Lord,  in  the  parables  of  the  wheat  and 
cockle  or  tares,  and  the  net  cast  into  the  sea, 
gathering  together  all  kinds  of  fish,  both  good 
and  bad,  which  are  recorded  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  St.  Matthew's  gospel.  Attempts  to 
found  or  carry  on  a  church  consisting  only  of 
good  people  can  only  result  in  hypocrisy. 

Please,  then,  before  you  blame  on  the  Church 
the  scandalous  conduct  of  any  Catholic,  find 
out  whether  he  goes  to  the  sacraments  regu- 
larly or  not. 

5 .  "To  contribute  to  the  support  of  our 
pastors"  is  the  fifth  precept.  It  is  plain  that 
the  clergy  must  be  supported  in  some  way,  as 
they  are  not  allowed  to  undertake  any  business 
which  can  supply  them  with  an  income.  In 
Catholic  countries  they  are  sometimes  paid  by 
the  State,  which,  of  course,  makes  them  really 
supported  by  the  people;  but  in  this  state  of 


2i6  The  Precepts  of  the  Church, 

things  there  is  no  special  application  of  thrs 
precept  to  the  conscience  of  the  individual 
Christian,  as  he  will  be  obliged  to  do  his  share 
without  thinking  of  it.  But  I  need  hardly  say 
that  here  there  is  no  such  provision,  and  it  is 
probably  best  that  there  should  be  none.  Its 
place  is  supplied  by  the  collections  taken  up  in 
church.  These  collections  and  the  rents  paid 
for  seats  have,  however,  also  another  object, 
that  of  providing  for  the  ordinary  running  ex- 
penses of  the  church,  or  other  undertakings 
connected  with  it,  such  as  the  parochial  school. 
Ever}^  one  is  evidently  bound  in  conscience  to 
contribute  to  these  collections,  whether  ordinary 
or  special ;  both  on  account  of  justice,  for  no 
one  can  have  a  right  to  occupy  a  seat  paid  for 
with  other  people's  money,  and  also  on  account 
of  charity,  for  every  Catholic  is,  of  course, 
bound  in  this  way  to  help  on  the  good  work  of 
the  church  generally,  though  some  part  of  it 
may  be  of  no  immediate  benefit  to  himself.  ' 
A  great  deal  of  nonsense  is  often  talked 
about  priests  being  grasping  and  avaricious, 
about  their  always  talking  about  money,  etc. 
It  is  perfectly  plain  to  any  one  who  knows  any- 
thing about  the  matter,  that  priests  do  not  want 
the  money  for  which  they  ask  for  themselves, 
but  for  the  work  of  the  church.  They  are  not 
obliged  to  carry  this  on  by  their  own  private 
means,  even  if  they  were  able  to  do  so  ;  but  as 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church,  217 

a  rule  they  have  no  such  private  means,  for 
priests  seldom  come  from  rich  families.  The 
people  must  then  furnish  them  with  the  money 
required  for  the  expenses  of  the  church  and  of 
the  diocese,  also  that  which  is  needed  for  the 
poor  and  for  charitable  institutions,  and  for 
foreign  missions ;  to  say  nothing  of  what  is  re- 
quired for  the  building  of  churches  and  schools, 
or  other  extraordinary  expenses.  People  gen- 
erally hardly  realize  how  great  these  expenses 
altogether  are,  and  fail  grievously  in  respect  of 
this  precept,  which,  after  all,  is  not  so  much  a 
precept  of  the  Church  as  an  obligation  coming 
from  the  very  nature  of  the  case.  Putting  a  few 
pennies  on  the  plate  of  a  Sunday,  which  is  all 
that  some  people  in  comfortable  circumstances 
do,  is  very  far  from  being  a  fulfilment  of  this 
obligation  ;  to  do  no  more  than  that  is  certainly 
for  such  a  grievous  sin  of  omission. 

It  is  true,  however,  that  this  commandment 
is,  to  some  extent,  complied  with  by  the  offer- 
ings which  are  customarily  made  on  the  occa- 
sion of  baptisms  and  marriages.  These  are  not 
required  by  the  priest  as  a  condition  of  perform- 
ing the  ceremony  ;  still,  they  cannot  be  con- 
sidered as  simply  voluntary,  as  without  them 
the  revenue  of  the  church  would  not  be  suffi- 
cient. 

6.  The  last  precept  concerns  the  matter 
of  marriage.      By  "solemnizing   marriage"  is 


2 1 8  The  Precepts  of  the  Church. 

meant  having  what  is  called  a  ''  nuptial  mass/' 
or  indulging  in  notable  festivity  or  display  on 
the  occasion ;  marriage  itself  is  not  absolutely 
forbidden  at  the  times  which  are  proscribed, 
though  the  custom  of  Catholics  is  not  to  enter 
on  it  at  these  times  without  a  grave  reason. 
The  times  are  from  the  beginning  of  Advent  to 
the  feast  of  the  Epiphany  (Jan.  6) ,  and  from  the 
beginning  of  lycnt  to  one  week  after  Easter. 

With  regard  to  the  degrees  of  kindred,  the 
Church  forbids  marriage  between  people  as 
nearly  related  as  what  are  called  third  cousins. 
It  also  has  established  other  prohibitions  to  ex- 
plain which  would  occupy  too  much  space,  and 
also  probably  lead  to  misunderstanding;  the 
only  safe  way  for  parties  intending  marriage  is 
to  notify  the  priest  in  time,  in  order  that  he 
may  examine  into  the  special  circumstances  of 
the  case.  In  most  of  the  cases  in  which  mar- 
riage is  prohibited,  it  is  also  considered  invalid 
by  the  Church  ;  so  that  the  matter  is  evidently 
one  of  the  greatest  importance. 

What  is  meant  by  marrying  clandestinely  is 
being  married  by  any  other  person  than  the 
priest  of  the  parish  to  which  the  parties  belong ; 
two  witnesses  are  also  required,  that  the  mar- 
riage be  not  clandestine. 

Now  here,  you  see,  we  have  what  is  meant 
by  ''  being  ready  to  observe  all  that  the  Church 
commands  me."     These  precepts  or  regulations 


The  Precepts  of  the  Church.  219 

which  have  been  given  are  evidently  only  such 
as  would  be  expected  to  be  made  by  any  organ- 
ization of  which  one  is  a  member ;  they  do  not 
compare  in  number  with  those  made  by  the 
State,  which  are  generally  submitted  to  without 
a  murmur.  And,  as  you  see,  there  is  nothing 
of  a  personal  character  about  them;  they 
bear  equally  on  all,  with  due  regard  to  the 
different  circumstances  of  individuals.  They 
are  simply  laws,  such  as  any  well-ordered  com- 
munity must  have  ;  and  the  wonder  is  not  that 
they  exist,  but  that  they  are  so  few  and  easy. 

In  this  matter,  of  course,  I  am  speaking  of 
the  obligations  of  the  laity.  The  clergy  are 
under  much  more  strict  control.  Not  only  are 
there  many  laws  specially  for  them,  restricting 
their  freedom  of  action,  but  they  are  also  sub- 
ject to  personal  direction  from  superiors,  from 
which  the  laity  are  practically  exempt.  This 
is  evidently  necessary  for  the  proper  discharge 
of  their  special  duties ;  but  it  is  a  matter  which 
need  not  concern  any  one  else  ;  and  no  one  can 
enlist  in  their  ranks  without  knowing  the  obli- 
gations which  he  is  incurring. 

But  it  should  be  distinctly  understood,  that 
both  laws  and  precepts  made  by  superiors  of 
any  kind,  either  in  the  Church,  the  State,  or 
family,  do  not  bind  when  they  are  evidently  con- 
trary to  the  dictates  of  conscience.  And  it 
must  also  be  remembered  that  the  Church  does 


220  The  Precepts  of  the  Church, 

not  claim  infallibility  for  herself  or  for  the  Pope 
in  matters  of  law,  precept,  or  government  gen- 
erally, but  only  in  formal  decisions  concerning 
faith  and  morals.  So  that  if — though  it  is 
really  a  practically  impossible  supposition — the 
Pope  were  to  order  any  Catholic  to  commit 
murder  or  any  other  crime,  the  command  would 
not  be  considered  as  having  any  binding  force, 
but  would  rather  be  an  evidence  of  insanity  on 
the  part  of  him  that  would  issue  such  an  order. 
And  the  same  would,  of  course,  also  apply  to 
any  bishop,  or  superior  in  a  religious  order, 
issuing  such  commands  to  his  subjects.  No 
one  would  think  for  a  moment  that  any  obliga- 
tion was  attached  to  them. 

I  think  we  have  now  discussed  all  the  princi- 
pal matters  requiring  explanation  in  the  pro- 
fession of  faith  which  has  made  our  text.  As, 
however,  there  are  other  points  which  give  dif- 
ficulty to  many,  and  occasion  of  criticism  or  of 
objection  to  the  Church,  it  will  be  well  to 
devote  some  space  to  the  consideration  of  at 
least  the  more  prominent  of  these. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 

INDUIvGE^NCKS   AND    DISPKNSATIONS. 

T  T  is  probable  that  there  is  among  Protestants 
^  a  more  obstinate — for  I  really  must  say  so 
— and  a  more  complete  misunderstanding  on  the 
point  of  Catholic  doctrine  named  first  in  the 
head  of  this  chapter,  than  on  any  other.  I  say 
**  obstinate  "  ;  for  the  truth  on  this  point  has 
been  stated  so  repeatedly  that  it  seems  impossi- 
ble that  it  should  not  have  been,  at  least  to  a 
great  extent,  accepted  in  the  Protestant  world 
by  this  time,  had  it  not  been  for  a  firm  deter- 
mination not  to  accept  it,  and  to  regard  us  as 
either  deceivers  or  deceived  regarding  it.  We 
find  the  word  '  *  indulgence  ' '  continually  under- 
stood by  ProtCvStant  Christians,  and  even  stated 
in  their  books,  as  being  a  permission  to  commit 
sin.  In  itself  this  misunderstanding  may  not 
be  so  extraordinary  or  unnatural ;  for  indul- 
gence, in  the  common  English  sense,  certainly 
does  often  mean  an  allowance  or  permission  to 
do  some  things  which  would  otherwise  be 
against  the  rules.  We  generally  mean  by  an 
*'  indulgent "  father,  for  instance,  one  who  does 
not  keep  a  very  tight  rein  on  his  children,  but 
allows  them  to  do  various  things  which  a  more 


222  Indulgences  and  Dispensations, 

strict  one  would  forbid.  And  we  also  mean  by 
"indulging"  ourselves,  allowing  ourselves 
pleasures  which,  if  we  were  very  conscien- 
tious, we  should  avoid.  When  we  indulge 
ourselves,  it  is  understood  that  we  turn  aside 
somewhat  from  the  path  of  duty. 

But  the  word  indulgence  has  another  sense, 
too.  A  father  would  also  be  called  indulgent 
if  he,  while  making  strict  rules  for  his  children, 
and  appointing  punishments  for  their  infrac- 
tion, should  be  moved  by  compassion  for  the 
children  so  as  to  remit  some  portion  of  these 
punishments,  and  try  to  correct  their  faults  by 
love  and  kindness  rather  than  by  fear  and 
severity. 

Now,  this  latter  is  the  idea  attached  to  the 
word  indulgence,  in  the  sense  in  which  it  is 
used  by  the  Church. 

To  understand  it  more  clearly  let  us  look 
into  the  facts  of  history. 

In  the  early  days  of  the  Christian  Church 
severe  penalties  were  appointed  for  those  who 
fell  into  grievous  sins,  especially  when  those 
sins  were  public  and  scandalous.  Of  course, 
these  penalties  or  penances  could  only  be  in- 
flicted after  the  repentance  of  those  who  had 
sinned ;  for  while  still  continuing  in  their  sin 
they  would  not  submit  to  them.  The  most 
common  ones  were  in  the  way  of  fasting,  which 
might  continue  with  more  or  less  strictness  for 


Indulgences  and  Dispensations,  223 

years.  A  long  time  also  intervened  in  some 
cases  before  the  offenders  could  be  restored  to 
the  full  communion  of  the  Church ;  and  they 
were  required  to  remain  also  in  a  separate  place 
by  the  door  at  public  service.  It  is  hardly 
necessary  to  go  into  details  concerning  this 
matter ;  still  a  few  examples  may  be  given  to 
show  the  rigor  of  this  ancient  discipline.  Its 
rules  were  too  numerous  for  us  to  do  more  than 
take  a  specimen  here  and  there. 

1 .  If  any  one  shall  do  any  servile  work  on  a 
Sunday  or  holy  day,  he  shall  do  penance  three 
days  on  bread  and  water. 

2.  He  who  breaks  the  fast  in  I^ent,  for  each 
day  shall  do  penance  for  seven  days. 

3.  He  who  curses  his  parents,  shall  be  peni- 
tent forty  days  on  bread  and  .water. 

4.  An  usurer,  three  years,  one  on  bread  and 
water. 

5.  An  adulterer,  five  to  twelve  years,  accord- 
ing to  circumstances. 

6.  A  mother  guilty  of  infanticide,  twelve 
years. 

7.  If  any  one  shall  swear  falsely  through 
avarice,  he  shall  sell  all  his  goods  and  give  the 
price  to  the  poor ;  and  entering  a  monastery,  do 
penance  all  his  life. 

Of  course  these  were   different   in  different 
parts  of  the  Church,  and  at  different  times. 
As  time  went  on,  and  the  fervor  of  the  faith- 


224  Indulgences  and  Dispensations, 

ful  became  somewhat  relaxed  with  the  greater 
prosperity  of  the  Church,  it  was  found  impossi- 
ble to  get  these  severe  penances  performed,  and 
it  became  evident  that  if  they  were  still  insisted 
on,  the  effect  would  be  to  prevent  repentance 
rather  than  to  insure  its  being  thorough  and 
sincere  ;  so,  naturally,  a  true  zeal  for  the  salva- 
tion of  souls  required  a  reduction  of  their  rigor, 
and  that  for  them  some  easier  works  of  penance 
should  be  substituted.  This  substitution  of  the 
easier  for  the  more  difficult  was  known  by  the 
name  of  an  indulgence.  At  the  present  day  it 
is  found  impracticable  to  enjoin  much  penance 
beyond  what  the  second  precept  of  the  Church, 
which  has  just  been  explained,  requires,  except 
to  those  who  are  exceptionally  pious  and  fer- 
vent; so  that  the  prayers  and  works  which 
have  taken  the  place  of  the  old  canonical  pen- 
ances, and  which  are  now  called  indulgences  or 
indulgenced  prayers  and  devotions,  are,  as  a 
rule,  very  easily  performed. 

They  are  divided  into  two  classes,  plenary 
and  partial.  The  plenary  indulgence  is  at- 
tached to  certain  works,  usually  somewhat  con- 
siderable, though  no  more  than  can  be  per- 
formed by  any  one  really  anxious  to  satisfy  for 
his  sins,  and  is  understood  as  making  such 
works  an  equivalent  for  all  that  ought  to  be 
done  in  that  way ;  the  partial,  to  works  or 
prayers  less    in   amount.     Partial  indulgences 


Indulgences  and  Dispensations.  22^ 

are  given  as  covering  a  certain  space  of  time, 
as  a  year,  forty  days,  and  the  like ;  by  this  it 
is  meant  that  they  are  substituted  for  the  canon- 
ical penance  which  would  formerly  have  been 
assigned  for  that  length  of  time. 

Now,  one  thing  about  this  matter  must  be 
specially  noted.  As  with  the  old  penances,  re- 
pentance is  supposed  to  precede.  Every  Cath- 
olic knows  perfectly  well  that  it  is  of  no  use  to 
try  to  get  an  indulgence  while  he  is  in  the  state 
of  mortal  sin  ;  if  he  be  in  that  state,  he  must  go 
to  confession  first,  and  get  into  the  state  of 
grace  and  friendship  with  God  by  a  hearty  re- 
pentance and  a  real  abandonment  of  his  bad 
life;  then,  if  there  be  any  indulgence  to  be 
had,  as  usually  happens  at  the  time  of  a  mis- 
sion, for  instance,  he  may  hope  to  get  the  bene- 
fit of  it,  to  satisfy,  to  some  extent  at  least,  for 
the  temporal  punishment  still  remaining  for  his 
sins. 

But,  as  a  general  thing,  it  is  only  pious  and 
good  people,  who  go  to  the  Sacraments  regular- 
ly, who  make  any  effort  to  get  indulgences,  un- 
less on  special  occasions  like  that  mentioned 
above.  These  good  people  have  long  ago  re- 
pented of  their  sins,  if  indeed  they  ever  had  any 
mortal  sins  to  repent  of;  at  the  same  time,  they 
have  not  the  courage,  or  perhaps  the  strength, 
to  undertake  any  severe  penitential  works ;  so 
they  try  to  get  the  benefit  of  these  commuta- 


226  Indulgences  and  Dispensations, 

tions  for  the  penance  which  their  more  heroic 
ancestors  used  to  do,  and  which  some  do  even 
now. 

Now,  you  notice  that  this  whole  doctrine  im- 
plies a  special  efficacy  in  the  way  of  satisfaction 
for  forgiven  sin,  attached  not  merely  to  peni- 
tential works  in  general,  but  particularly  to 
those  appointed,  and  blessed,  as  it  were,  by  the 
Church.  As  the  old  canonical  penances  were 
regarded  as  more  salutary  than  anything  one 
could  do  of  one's  own  accord,  so  these  which 
are  substituted  for  them  have  a  like  value. 
And  it  is  also  plain  that,  in  theory,  a  work  or 
prayer  to  which  an  indulgence  of  a  hundred 
days  is  attached  is  the  equivalent  of  the  old 
penance  performed  for  that  time ;  but  as  it  is 
confessed  that  the  actual  benefit  derived  from 
this  indulgenced  work  or  prayer  depends  largely 
on  the  fervor  with  which  it  is  done  or  said,  it  is 
plain  that  this  actual  benefit  of  an  indulgence 
is  likely  to  be  less  than  that  of  the  old  penance  ; 
for  to  perform  the  penance  required  of  itself  a 
good  deal  of  fervor,  while  to  perform  the  work 
to  which  the  indulgence  is  attached  requires  of 
necessity  very  little.  All  devout  Catholics  in- 
stinctively feel  this,  and  therefore  most  of  them, 
instead  of  being  contented  with  one  plenary 
indulgence,  or  a  few  partial  ones,  try  to  gain  as 
many  as  they  conveniently  can. 

Now,  of  course  I  am  aware  that  objections 


Indulgences  and  Dispensations,  227 

may  be  raised  against  the  whole  doctrine  of 
temporal  punishment  for  venial  or  for  forgiven 
mortal  sin,  and  also  against  the  Church  having 
the  power  of  making  any  special  form  of  such 
satisfaction  specially  salutary;  but  the  main 
point  about  the  matter  of  which  we  are  now 
treating  is  that  the  whole  doctrine  of  indul- 
gences has  reference  to  this  matter  of  satisfac- 
tion, and  that  the  idea  of  their  being  permis- 
sions to  commit  sin  is  something  which  never 
occurs  to  a  Catholic  at  all.  It  is  simply  a 
monstrous  delusion  which  Protestants  have 
somehow  got  into ;  one  which  would  indeed 
be  ludicrous,  were  not  the  prejudice  against  the 
Church  which  it  has  created  so  lamentable. 

It  is  hard,  I  know,  for  a  Protestant  to  give 
up  this,  perhaps,  his  greatest  charge  against 
the  Church  ;  the  one  which  he  has  seen  over 
and  over  again  stated  as  an  historical  fact, 
especially  in  connection  with  the  Reformation. 
That  Tetzel  was  selling  permissions  to  commit 
sin,  the  price  being  a  contribution  to  the  build- 
ing of  St.  Peter's  Church,  is  something  he  feels 
as  certain  of  as  that  Christ  lived  and  died. 
But  the  fact  about  that  matter  was  merely  that 
Tetzel  had  authority  to  collect  money  for  St. 
Peter's,  as  one  might  have  nowadays  for  any 
church,  the  building  of  the  church  and  the^ 
contributing  to  it  being  regarded,  undoubtedly, 
as  a  good  work  ;  and  that  to  this  good  work  the 


228  Indulgences  and  Dispensations, 

Holy  See  attached  an  indulgence — that  is,  it 
substituted  this  good  work  for  the  canonical 
penances,  in  the  way  that  has  been  described. 
But,  of  course,  no  Catholic  knowing  his  reli- 
gion supposed  that  it  would  do  any  good  in 
that  way  to  any  one  who  intended  to  commit 
grievous  sin,  or  to  any  one  who  had  not  sin- 
cerely repented  of  all  the  grievous  sins  he  had 
committed,  and  abandoned  them  for  good. 

So  much,  then,  for  this  monstrous  and  almost 
inconceivable  misrepresentation.  The  only  way 
of  justifying  or  accounting  for  it  is,  that  at  the 
time  of  the  Reformation  the  matter  of  preach- 
ing and  explaining  the  faith  and  practice  of  the 
Church  had  been  somewhat  neglected,  so  that 
many  Catholics  were  ignorant,  in  a  great 
measure,  of  what  the  Church  taught;  and 
though  it  is  hard  to  believe  that  lyUther,  priest 
as  he  was,  was  among  this  number,  still  many 
could  easily  be  persuaded,  because  they  had 
not  received  much  Catholic  instruction,  that  an 
indulgence  was  something  like  what  Protestants 
now  imagine  it  to  be.  Still,  it  is  not  probable 
that  this  error  took  much  hold  in  the  beginning 
of  the  Reformation ;  but  as  people  got  more  and 
more  separated  from  the  Church,  and  out  of 
reach  of  its  voice,  the  false  idea  developed  and 
i^ok  firm  hold  of  their  minds. 

And  now  a  few  words  about  a  kindred  sub- 
ject, one  often  confused  with  the  one  of  which  I 


Indulgences  and  Dispensations.  22g 

have  been  treating.  I  mean  the  matter  of  dis- 
pensations, so  called. 

What  is  a  dispensation  ?  It  is  a  relaxation 
of  a  law  made  by  the  Church,  for  some  reason 
not  sufficient  in  itself  to  excuse  one  from  it. 
For  instance,  a  person  not  sick  enough  to  be 
excused  by  the  sickness  itself  from  abstinence 
on  Friday,  may  be  excused  by  the  authorities 
of  the  Church ;  the  law  is  dispensed  or  its 
obligation  removed  in  his  particular  case.  Evi- 
dently it  is  in  the  power  of  any  law-giver  to 
release  any  one  or  more  of  his  subjects  from 
a  law  which  he  has  made  ;  as  he  made  the  law, 
so  can  he  also  unmake  it.  And  he  can  give 
permission  to  others,  or  delegate  them,  as  we 
say,  to  dispense  in  this  way  in  his  name.  In 
order,  however,  that  a  dispensation  should  be 
lawfully  given  there  must,  as  I  have  said,  be 
some  reason  for  it,  though  not  a  reason  enough 
in  itself  to  excuse ;  also  this  dispensation  should 
not  cause  an  undue  burden  to  fall  on  others. 

But,  it  is  plain  enough  that  though  a  law- 
giver can  dispense  in  his  own  law,  he  cannot 
dispense  in  the  eternal  laws  of  God,  or  the 
essential  obligations  of  morality,  for  he  did  not 
make  or  constitute  these.  Dispensations,  there- 
fore, are  never  given  by  the  Church  in  matters 
of  morality  ;  but  only  in  those  things  which  of 
themselves  are  indifferent,  like  that  of  absti- 
nence on  Friday,  as  mentioned  above.     Some 


230  Indulgences  and  Dispensations, 

things,  you  see,  are  commanded  because  they 
are  essentially  right  and  obligatory,  or  forbid- 
den because  they  are  essentially  wrong.  Others, 
on  the  contrary,  are  obligatory  simply  because 
they  are  commanded,  or  prohibited  merely  as 
being  against  the  law.  As,  for  example,  in 
secular  legislation,  there  is  no  obligation  in  it- 
self to  pay  tariff  duties  until  a  law  is  made  to 
that  effect,  and  one  can  walk  freely  over  the 
grass  unless  it  is  forbidden  to  do  so  by  some 
special  regulation.  It  is  in  matters  only  of  this 
latter  kind  that  the  Church  gives  dispensations  ; 
where  she  makes  a  law  for  the  general  good, 
which  without  her  legislation  would  not  be  a 
matter  of  obligation.  But  in  matters  of  the 
divine  law  she  cannot  interfere,  except  to  inter- 
pret it  where  doubt  may  exist.  She  cannot  say 
that  any  act  is  a  sin  against  the  divine  law,  and 
then  give  permission  or  dispensation  for  it,  and 
she  never  does.  If  she  could  have  done  a  thing 
like  that,  she  could  have  saved  England  to  the 
Church ;  but  she  would  not  grant  permission  or 
dispensation  to  Henry  VIII.  to  marry  Ann 
Boleyn  when  he  was  truly  married  to  Queen 
Catherine;  for  both  divorce  and  bigamy  are 
prohibited  by  the  law  of  God.  lyUther  and  his 
companions  were  willing  to  strain  a  point  to 
please  the  I^andgrave  of  Hesse,  and  subscribed 
a  document  to  that  effect ;  but  the  Catholic 
Church  cannot  do  such  a  thing. 


Indulgences  and  Dispensations,  231 

She  will  not  allow  the  smallest  thing,  es- 
sentially sinful — even,  for  instance,  the  most 
trifling  falsehood —for  any  consideration,  how- 
ever important. 

Now  one  more  matter,  suggested  by  this,  be- 
fore we  conclude  this  chapter.  It  is  commonly 
said  by  Protestants  that  we,  and  especially  the 
Jesuits,  maintain  that  one  may  do  evil  that 
good  may  come,  or  that  the  end  sanctifies  the 
means. 

It  is  curious  that  the  same  accusation  was 
made  in  the  very  beginning  of  Christianity. 
St.  Paul  testifies  to  this  :  * '  And  not  rather  (as 
we  are  slandered,  and  as  some  affirm  that  we 
say)  let  us  do  evil,  that  there  may  come  good?  *' 
(Rom.  iii.  8). 

When  St.  Paul  condemned  this  doctrine  you 
believe  that  he  meant  what  he  said,  I  know. 
You  do  not  suppose  him  to  be  a  Jesuit ;  you  do 
not  think  that  he  maintains  a  thing  which  in 
his  heart  he  denies,  as  you  perhaps  believe  the 
Jesuits  do.  And  yet  you  see  he  was  accused 
of  this  damnable  doctrine,  that  the  end  sanc- 
tifies or  justifies  the  means. 

Precisely  the  same  is  the  case  now.  The 
accusation  made  against  us  of  holding  this 
doctrine  is  one  for  which  there  is  not  the  slight- 
est shadow  of  real  foundation ;  there  is  none 
whatever  in  the  formularies  or  decrees  of  the 
Church,  nor  is  there  any  in  the  writings  of  a 


232  Indulgences  and  Dispensations. 

single  Catholic  theologian.  On  the  contrary, 
Catholic  writers  on  moral  theology,  in  which 
branch  of  science  the  question  would  occur, 
unanimously  reject  it.  The  Jesuits,  who  have 
given  special  attention  to  this  science,  do  so 
most  explicitly.  Such  a  doctrine  is  never 
taught  by  any  one  in  the  Catholic  Church  pub- 
licly or  privately  ;  unless  it  might  be  by  some 
unlearned  layman  who  had  been  made  to  be- 
lieve by  what  Protestants  say  that  such  was  the 
Catholic  teaching,  and  thought  it  his  duty  to 
defend  it  as  well  as  he  could.  No  permission 
would  or  could  be  given  in  the  Church  to  com- 
mit the  smallest  sin,  even  if  the  whole  world 
could  be  converted  to  the  faith  by  it. 

The  only  thing  that  could  possibly  be  mis- 
taken— and  that  only  by  great  stupidity  or  in- 
advertence— for  such  a  doctrine  is  the  common- 
sense  judgment  of  theologians,  that  if  an  action 
has  two  results,  one  evil  and  one  good,  the  evil 
can  be  permitted  for  the  sake  of  the  good,  if  the 
good  is  what  is  intended  and  is  considerable 
compared  with  the  evil.  As,  for  instance,  a 
military  commander,  engaged  in  a  just  war, 
can  shell  a  town  occupied  by  the  enemy, 
though  he  knows  that  in  all  probability  some 
non-combatants,  women  or  children,  will  be  un- 
avoidably and  unintentionally  killed.  He  does 
not  kill  them  as  a  means  of  killing  the  armed 
enemy  ;  the  latter  is  what   he  is  trying  to  do, 


Confession.  233 


the  former  happens    simply  because  he  cannot 
help  it. 

Do  not  then,  if  you  value  truth  or  justice, 
make  this  absurd  charge  against  us.  And  now 
let  us  go  on  to  some  other  matters,  where  per- 
haps there  is  more  excuse  for  some  misunder- 
standing. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 

CONFESSION. 

I  HAVE  already  had  something  to  say  about 
the  Catholic  doctrine  and  practice  of  con- 
fession and  absolution  when  speaking  of  the 
Sacraments,  some  time  ago  ;  but  as  intimated 
then,  the  subject  is  such  a  prominent  one  and 
liable  to  so  much  misunderstanding,  that  it  is 
better  to  give  it  a  more  full  explanation. 

The  Catholic  belief  about  this  matter  is,  that 
all  who  commit  mortal  sins  after  baptism  are 
bound  by  the  law  of  God  to  confess  these  sins 
to  a  priest ;  and  that  this  confession,  or  rather 
the  absolution  which  is  usually  given  by  the 
priest  after  it,  is  the  ordinary  way  in  which  sins 
committed  after  baptism  are  forgiven.  It  is  not 
doubted,  however,  that  they  may  be  forgiven 
without  the  ministry  of  the  priest  if  the  sinner 
has  what  is  called  perfect  contrition  ;  that  is,  a 
true  and  hearty  sorrow  for  sxw.  ptirely  for  God's 


234  Confession, 


sake,  joined,  of  course,  with  a  firm  purpose  of 
avoiding  it  for  the  future,  and  of  doing  every- 
thing which  God  commands.  But  as  the 
Catholic  firmly  believes  that  God  commands 
confession  for  all  sins  after  baptism,  as  has  been 
said — and  this  whether  the  sins'  have  been  al- 
ready forgiven  or  not — it  is  plain  that  he  goes 
to  confession  just  the  same  in  this  case  as  in 
any  other. 

In  most  cases,  however,  it  seems  that  the 
sorrow  felt  for  sin  is  hardly  pure  and  perfect 
enough  to  insure  its  forgiveness  without  abso- 
lution. With  absolution  a  lower  and  less  per- 
fect sorrow  suffices ;  but  even  in  this  case  there 
must  be  a  true  and  genuine  repentance  founded 
on  motives  of  faith,  such  as  the  fear  of  punish- 
ment in  the  next  life,  not  on  mere  worldly  con- 
siderations. And  there  must  be  a  real  turning 
from  sin  as  such,  so  that  the  sinner  would  not 
commit  it,  even  though  he  should  be  told  that 
God  w^ould  not  punish  him  for  future  sins,  or — 
what  is  more  practical  and  possible — that  he 
would  certainly  have  the  grace  of  forgiveness 
later  on.  One  who  truly  repents  of  his  sins  in 
a  way  to  obtain  forgiveness  for  them  even  with 
the  help  of  the  priest's  absolution,  must  be  so 
disposed  that  he  would  not  go  on  committing 
them,  even  though  he  felt  sure  he  would  live 
ten  or  twenty  years  longer.  It  is  to  be  feared, 
of  course,  that  some  who  apparently  repent  and 


U  ^  I V  ii  ^'^-'  >-  ^  ^  i 


confess  their  sins  on  their  death-beds,  or  what 
they  believe  to  be  such,  are  not  in  these  dis- 
positions, but  are  merely  influenced  by  servile 
fear,  as  it  is  called  ;  that  they  turn  from  sin  not 
because  they  hate  it  in  any  way,  but  simply  and 
solely  because  they  dread  its  punishment ;  that 
they  would  send  away  the  priest  instantly  if  the 
doctor  told  them  they  were  sure  to  recover,  and 
not  think  of  calling  for  him  again  till  they 
again  seemed  to  be  in  a  similar  emergency. 
Such,  of  course,  are  not  forgiven  even  if  the 
priest  gives  them  absolution,  as  he  probably 
will  on  the  chance,  however  doubtful  their  dis- 
positions may  seem  to  be. 

You  see,  then,  that  the  dispositions  of  the  sin- 
ner must  be  satisfactory  in  God's  sight  when 
he  goes  to  confession,  and  that  otherwise,  ac- 
cording to  Catholic  doctrine,  he  is  not  forgiven. 
And  I  hope  you  see  and  believe  what  every 
Catholic  knows  perfectly  well,  that  it  is  not  the 
idea  of  confession  simply  to  wash  out  an  old 
score  of  sins,  and  have  a  clean  slate  to  start 
with  more  on.  Some  Protestants  imagine  this  ; 
that  the  Catholic  goes  to  confession  simply  to 
report  his  sins,  and  have  a  suitable  penance  as- 
signed which  will  make  the  matter  all  right 
w^ithout  further  trouble. 

And  perhaps  you  imagine  a  still  more 
scandalous  and  outrageous  thing  yet ;  namely, 
that  the  penance  is  largely  in  the  form  of  money 


236  Confession, 


paid  to  the  priest.  It  has  even  been  said  that 
we  have  a  regular  schedule  of  sins,  so  much 
being  paid  for  the  absolution  of  each.  It  is  the 
same  old  idea  as  that  about  indulgences,  except 
that  the  money  is  supposed  to  be  handed  over 
afterwards  instead  of  beforehand. 

It  is  simply  utterly  false.  Nothing  of  the 
kind  exists ;  indeed,  it  is  in  some  dioceses  ab- 
solutely forbidden  to  receive  money  in  the  con- 
fessional, though  it  may  be  due  on  some  other 
account.  But  as  for  paying  for  absolution,  it  is 
a  thing  unheard  of.  There  seems  to  be.  no  es- 
sential reason  why  a  voluntary  offering  should 
not  be  made  on  the  occasion  of  confession,  as 
well  as  on  that  of  baptism  or  marriage;  but  as 
it  would  be  likely  to  lead  to  some  abuse  and  to 
give  scandal,  to  say  nothing  of  discouraging 
frequent  reception  of  the  Sacraments  of  Pen- 
ance and  the  Eucharist,  which  the  Church  has 
much  at  heart,  no  custom  of  the  kind  could  be 
tolerated. 

No,  hearing  confessions  is  on  natural  grounds 
a  burden  to  the  priest,  and  often  quite  a  griev- 
ous one.  This  of  itself  would  suffice  to  show 
that  it  is  not  a  human  invention,  for  there  could 
be  no  possible  inducement  to  the  priesthood  to 
institute  a  practice  so  full  of  labor,  and  putting 
such  a  strain  as  this  does  on  patience,  except 
the  conviction  that  it  was  required  by  the  law 
of  God. 


Confession.  237 

Of  course  it  has  its  consolations  ;  for  if  there 
be  ''joy  before  the  angels  of  God  upon  one  sin- 
ner doing  penance  "  (or  as  your  version  has  it, 
' '  one  sinner  that  repentetli ' '  ;  both  mean  the 
same  thing)  (lyuke  xv.  10),  so  the  priest  can- 
not but  be  moved  to  joy  when  he  sees  a  sinner 
turning  to  God  ;  and  also  he  is  edified  and  en- 
couraged when  he  sees,  as  he  often  does,  how 
pure  and  free  from  sin,  and  how  exalted  in  vir- 
tue, many  souls  have  become  which  have  been 
in  this  very  sacrament  repeatedly  washed  in  the 
blood  of  the  I^amb. 

One  other  mistake  may  be  now  mentioned  ; 
it  has  been  already  alluded  to  in  what  has  been 
said  about  the  Pope.  Some  Protestants  im- 
agine that  the  priest  himself  does  not  go  to  con- 
fession, or  if  he  does,  that  he  confesses  to  the 
bishop,  and  the  bishops  to  the  Pope.  This  is 
all  nonsense.  Priests  go  to  confession  far  more 
frequently  than  the  average  of  the  laity ;  they 
are  expected  to  do  so  once  a  week,  as  they  are 
expected  to  receive  Communion  every  day  ;  for 
of  course  they  receive  when  they  say  Mass,  and 
this  they  should  do  daily.  And  they  go,  as  a 
rule,  to  each  other ;  and  the  bishop  would  gen- 
erally confess  to  a  priest ;  even  the  Pope,  as  has 
been  said,  would  do  the  same. 

Another  absurd  idea  prevails  regarding  this 
matter;  namely,  on  the  notion  just  mentioned 
of  priests   confessing  to  the   bishop,  etc.,  it  is 


238  Confession, 


supposed  that  they  report  what  they  hear  in 
confession  to  him,  and  he  to  the  Pope.  And 
yet  every  one  ought  to  know  that  the  obligation 
of  secrecy  with  regard  to  what  a  priest  hears  in 
confession  is  most  absolute,  admitting  of  no  ex- 
ception whatever.  A  priest  who  was  known  to 
have  broken  this  law  would  be  immediately 
deprived  of  all  right  of  exercising  any  office 
whatever  in  the  Church  ;  but  in  point  of  fact 
such  a  case  is  unknown.  There  is  no  authentic 
instance  of  this  seal  of  confession  being  inten- 
tionally broken,  even  by  priests  who  have  lost 
the  faith  and  left  the  Church  ;  and  even  in 
insanity  or  delirium  it  does  not  appear  ever  to 
have  been  done. 

There  is  another  matter  still  upon  which  it 
seems  necessary  to  say  a  few  words,  though 
they  ought  not  to  be  needed  ;  and  every  decent 
person  must  approach  it  reluctantly.  It  is  the 
charge  made  against  the  Church  that  the  con- 
fessional, so  far  from  being  a  means  by  which 
souls  are  cleansed  from  sin,  is  made  in  practice 
a  school  of  corruption,  especially  to  persons  of 
the  other  sex.  This  charge  is  made,  as  a  rule, 
in  the  first  place  by  certain  apostate  priests,  who 
profess  to  speak  from  experience.  Others  make 
it  on  their  authority.  The  simplest  answer  to 
it  is,  that  if  such  is  the  experience  of  these 
priests,  so  much  the  worse  for  them  personally ; 
if  there  has  been  corruption  in  the  confessional 


Confession.  239 


in  their  experience,  who  but  themselves  can 
have  been  the  parties  guilty  of  it? 

The  sole  foundation  for  any  general  charge 
of  this  kind  is  that,  as  all  kinds  of  sins  must  be 
confessed,  those  relating  to  impurity  cannot  be 
excepted.  It  is  then  stated,  as  an  obvious  con- 
secjtience  from  this,  that  what  are  called  **  ob- 
scene "  questions  must  be  asked,  and  in  point 
of  fact  are  asked,  by  priests  of  penitents. 

I  reply :  to  say  that  such  questions,  or  that 
any  questions  at  all,  must  necessarily  be  asked, 
is  not  true.  If  a  penitent  is  able  and  willing 
to  tell  the  sins  which  have  to  be  told  without 
questioning,  so  much  the  better.  If,  however, 
it  is  difficult,  as  it  may  naturally  be,  to  do 
so,  some  questions  may  have  to  be  asked  to 
make  it  easier,  and  also  to  prevent  matters  from 
being  stated  which  really  are  not  necessary,  but 
which  the  penitent  may  imagine  to  be  so.  But 
that  such  questions  must  be  and  are  in  fact 
obscene,  is  again  a  falsehood.  As  well  might 
one  say  that  a  physician  must  necessarily  be 
obscene  in  his  treatment  of  patients,  or  that 
physicians,  as  a  rule,  are  so.  The  physician 
has  to  treat  diseases  of  the  body ;  the  priest, 
those  of  the  soul ;  both,  to  do  any  good,  must 
know  just  what  is  the  matter;  the  cases  are 
parallel.  But  neither  need  act  or  speak  im- 
purely or  obscenely  in  doing  so.  What,  then, 
but  a  malignant  hatred  of  the  Church  can  make 


240  Confession. 


any  one  say  that  a  respectable  physician  can  be 
trusted,  but  that  a  priest  cannot ;  that  a  physi- 
cian, who  often  makes  no  pretence  to  be  spe- 
cially conscientious,  will  avoid  sin,  while  a 
priest,  whose  conduct  is  otherwise  blameless, 
will  commit  it?  The  charge  is  not  only  one 
of  sin,  which  no  one  makes  against  physicfens 
as  a  rule,  but  also  of  most  horrible  hypocrisy 
and  sacrilege ;  for  the  doctor  is  often  nothing 
but  a  man  of  the  world,  while  the  priest  re- 
ceives and  dispenses  the  Sacraments  daily. 
What  right  have  you  to  make  such  a  hideous 
accusation?  The  priest's  duty  can  be  done 
with  the  greatest  prudence  and  delicacy,  as 
well  as  the  doctor's ;  why  should  not  he,  as 
well  as  the  doctor,  do  it  in  this  way?  It  is 
simply  monstrous  to  say  that  as  a  rule,  almost 
without  exception,  he  does  or  says  anything  in 
this  matter  which  would  be  wrong. 

I  do  not  deny  that  there  may  be  a  rare  excep- 
tion here  and  there.  One  who  never  should 
have  been  a  priest  may  take  upon  himself  this 
sacred  calling  in  spite  of  all  the  pains  which  are 
taken  to  prevent  this ;  and  having  done  so,  he 
may  abuse  it.  But  we  have  a  very  strict  law 
to  provide  for  such  cases.  Every  penitent  of 
either  sex  to  whom  a  priest  in  confession  may 
have  used  words  with  an  obviously  corrupting 
and  immoral  intention  is  bound,  under  penalty 
of  mortal  sin  and  the  refusal  of  absolution,  to 


Confession,  241 


denounce  such  a  priest  to  his  bishop ;  and  any 
priest  who  is  found  to  be  really  guilty  in  this 
respect  is  most  severely  reprimanded  and  de- 
prived of  his  office.  So  that  even  an  evil-dis- 
posed priest  can  only  be  guilty  of  such  an 
offence  by  some  incredible  folly. 

But,  you  may  say,  at  least  is  not  the  priest's 
mind,  even  if  pure  at  the  beginning,  necessarily 
corrupted  by  all  the  sins  which  he  is  obliged  to 
hear,  and  which,  perhaps,  previously  he  was 
ignorant  of?  Strange  as  it  may  seem,  I  say  it 
is  not,  and  this  for  several  reasons.  In  the  first 
place,  by  a  peculiar  disposition  of  things,  which 
hardly  seems  altogether  natural,  though  no 
doubt  it  is  partly  so,  a  priest  after  hearing  con- 
fessions, say  for  an  afternoon  or  evening,  really 
forgets  almost  all  that  he  has  heard.  Some- 
times if  a  person  comes  back  who  has  been  in 
the  confessional  only  a  little  while  ago,  the 
priest  has  to  make  an  effort,  often  an  unsuccess- 
ful one,  to  remember  anything  about  his  case. 
One  thing  blots  out  another.  Secondly,  custom, 
making  the  hearing  of  sins  more  monotonous 
and  tiresome,  destroys  the  attraction  they  might 
otherwise  have.  Thirdly,  sins  are  not  told  by 
sincere  penitents  in  a  way  to  tempt  the  listener. 
Fourthly,  if  some  one  should  come  with  a  pre- 
tended confession  in  order  to  produce  such 
temptation,  not  only  would  the  priest  naturall}" 
be  alarmed   and  horrified,   but   also   he  would 


242  Confession, 


remember  another  point  of  the  same  law  that 
has  been  mentioned,  namely,  that  any  exterior 
consent,  though  only  verbal,  to  such  an  at- 
tempt would  subject  him  to  the  same  report 
being  made  to  his  bishop  as  in  the  other 
case. 

I  hope  that  what  has  now  been  said  with 
reference  to  this  nasty  calumny  and  the  un- 
worthy suspicion  caused  by  it  will  suffice.  I 
regret  that  it  should  be  necessary  to  say  so 
much  about  it ;  but  the  gravity  of  the  charge 
makes  it  unavoidable. 

In  point  of  fact,  the  influence  of  the  confes- 
sional, outside  of  the  supernatural  benefit  of 
absolution  which  we  believe  to  be  attached  to 
it,  is  good  both  for  priest  and  penitent.  The 
former  learns  compassion  for  the  weakness  of 
human  nature ;  also  humility,  for  he  sees  how 
he  also  might  have  fallen  into  great  sins  had 
not  God  mercifully  preserved  him ;  also  care  in 
guarding  against  the  occasions  and  temptations 
which  have  proved  so  dangerous  to  others. 
The  latter  frees  his  mind  of  secrets  which  were 
weighing  on  it ;  he  knows  the  evil  and  the 
danger  of  sin  better  than  before  ;  he  also  knows 
the  obligations  of  justice  or  of  charity  which  he 
is  under;  he  receives  advice  how  to  guard 
against  sin  for  the  future,  and  how  to  advance 
in  the  way  of  virtue.  This  last  matter,  which 
is  known  as  spiritual   direction,   is  the  most 


Confession.  243 


efficacious  of  all  means  for  spiritual  advance- 
ment. 

We  have  a  great  abundance  of  treatises  on 
the  spiritual  life,  and  these  are,  no  doubt,  of  the 
greatest  profit  to  the  reader ;  probably  there  are 
fifty  to  a  hundred  of  such  works  among  us  to 
one  which  Protestants  have.  And  what  won- 
der;  for  they  have  no  fixed  principles  to  start 
with,  they  are  always  discussing  and  changing 
their  creeds,  and  never  can  advance  to  anything 
beyond.  But  a  word  or  two  addressed  per- 
sonally to  one's  self,  and  based  on  one's  own  in- 
dividual needs,  even  if  spoken  by  one  who  is 
himself  only  moderately  advanced  in  learning 
or  sanctity,  is  often  more  efficacious  than  a 
whole  book.  One  piece  of  advice  given  by 
one  who  knows  the  heart  and  soul  is  better 
sometimes  than  a  long  talk  from  the  best  of 
friends  who  have  not  such  knowledge,  or  than 
the  most  eloquent  of  sermons. 


CHAPTER  XX. 

the;  c:^i,ibacy  of  the:  civ:^rgy. 

AS  we  have  been  speaking  about  the  clergy 
with  relation  to  this  matter  of  the  confes- 
sional, this  seems  an  appropriate  time  also  to 
discuss  another  subject  concerning  them  about 
which  remark  is  often  made ;  that  is  the  one 
which  forms  the  title  of  this  chapter.  Clerical 
celibacy  is  regarded  by  those  outside  the 
Church  with  feelings  both  of  admiration  and  of 
dislike.  No  one  can  fail  to  see  that  an  un- 
married man  is  more  absolutely  free  to  attend 
to  his  work  than  one  who  has  the  care  of  a 
family  ;  and  also  that  he  can  afford  to  work  for 
a  smaller  salary ;  so  that  a  body  of  unmarried 
clergy  can  be  supported  with  less  demand  on 
the  money  of  the  people  than  would  be  required 
were  they  married.  It  also  appears  pretty  clear 
that  if  a  clergyman  is  what  he  ought  to  be — 
determined,  that  is,  to  serve  God  faithfully,  he 
not  only  can  but  will  do  so  with  less  distraction 
to  what  may  be  called  side  issues  than  if  he  had 
a  wife  and  family  to  attend  to.  I  know  that  the 
Protestant  idea  is  that  a  good  wife  is  a  positive 
help  to  a  minister  ;  that  she  will  make  him  bet- 
ter and  more  zealous  than  he  would  be  without 


The  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy,  245 

her.  St.  Paul,  however,  it  must  be  admitted 
by  Bible  Christians,  is  something  of  an  author- 
ity on  this  point;  and  he  says:  **He  that  is 
without  a  wife,  is  solicitous  for  the  things  that 
belong  to  the  Lord,  how  he  may  please  God. 
But  he  that  is  with  a  wife,  is  solicitous  for  the 
things  of  the  world,  how  he  may  please  his 
wife;  and  he  is  divided." 

It  may,  of  course,  be  urged  that  this  disad- 
vantage is  more  than  made  up  for  in  other  ways, 
at  least  for  those  clergymen  who  are  regularly 
settled  in  the  care  of  a  parish.  We  hardly 
agree  to  this  ;  still  the  Catholic  Church  does 
not  exclude  from  her  communion  certain  coun- 
tries in  which  this  custom  prevails,  and  if 
Russia,  which  is  such  a  country,  were  recon- 
ciled to  Rome  to-morrow,  it  is  probable  that 
this  discipline  would  still  be  tolerated  there. 
But  there  is  not  the  slightest  probability  that 
the  rule  of  celibacy  will  ever  be  changed  in 
countries  at  present  Catholic,  or  in  Protestant 
countries  like  England  or  America. 

And  one  word  should  here  be  said  with  regard 
to  the  married  clergy  of  a  country  like  Russia, 
and  of  other  countries  either  united  to  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  or  separated  from  it,  which  have  a 
similar  discipline. 

The  clergy  of  these  countries  are  married  be- 
fore ordination  ;  in  other  words,  the  candidate 
for  Holy  Orders  is  expected  or  even  required  to 


n 


"irivsusnfl 


246  The  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy, 

be  a  married  man,  unless  he  belongs  to  a  reli- 
gious order,  of  which  I  shall  have  more  to  say 
shortly.  Whereas,  in  the  properly  Roman 
system  such  candidate  is  expected  to  be  un- 
married, and  must,  if  married,  no  longer  live 
with  his  wife,  though  the  bond  of  marriage  re- 
mains unbroken.  This  latter  plan  has,  how- 
ever, proved  objectionable,  and  at  present  is  not 
allowed  in  practice. 

But  the  Roman,  Greek,  and  Oriental 
churches  agree  that  a  man  cannot  marry  after 
ordination.  So  if  the  wife  of  a  priest,  whom  he 
has  married  before  ordination,  should  die,  he  is 
not  allowed  to  marry  again.  This  rule  was  ob- 
served from  the  earliest  times  throughout  Chris- 
tendom, though  the  special  discipline  of  the 
Roman  Church  is  of  later  institution. 

So  the  taking  of  a  wife  by  a  priest,  and 
especially  by  a  bishop,  after  receiving  his  or- 
ders, was  an  innovation  of  the  Reformers,  not 
warranted  in  any  way  by  Christian  tradition. 
In  the  case  of  I^uther  and  some  others  it  was  a 
double  or  triple  violation  of  the  rules  of  the 
Church,  for  lyUther  was  not  only  a  priest,  but  a 
monk  ;  and  the  wife  whom  he  took  was  a  nun. 

But  to  return  to  the  consideration  of  the  es- 
sential advantages  and  disadvantages  of  celi- 
bacy. I  think  that  all  will  really  admit,  that 
for  the  efficiency  of  the  clergy  it  is  better  on  the 
whole  than  the   state   of  marriage  ;    the   only 


The  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy,  247 

thing  that  seems  in  the  minds  of  Protestants  to 
be  a  conclusive  argument  against  it  is,  that  it 
produces  immorality  ;  that  it  is  impossible,  or 
at  least  highly  improbable,  that  an  unmarried 
clergy  can  be  actually  chaste  and  pure.  In 
short,  they  regard  virginity,  at  least  in  men,  to 
be  practically  out  of  the  question ;  that  is  the 
plain  statement  of  the  case. 

This  is,  of  course,  an  insult  against  the  Catho- 
lic clergy  ;  it  is  a  deliberate  accusation  against 
us,  not  only  of  grievous  sin,  but  also  of  most 
damnable  hypocrisy  ;  for  that  we  profess  to  lead 
pure  lives  there  can  be  no  doubt.  But  further- 
more, the  charge,  even  abstractly  made,  is  a 
direct  denial  of  the  words  of  Christ  Himself. 
For  we  read  in  the  nineteenth  chapter  of  St. 
Matthew's  gospel,  that  when  those  who  heard 
the  strictness  of  the  law  laid  down  by  Him  con- 
cerning marriage,  said  that  according  to  this 
law  it  would  not  be  expedient  to  marry  (v.  10) , 
He  warned  them  against  such  a  conclusion  be- 
ing taken  as  a  general  rule;  **A11  men,"  He 
says,  *'  take  not  this  word,  but  they  to  whom  it 
is  given'*  (v.  11).  But  nevertheless  he  en- 
couraged and  advised  some  to  adopt  it ;  ' '  He 
that  can  take,  let  him  take  it"   (v.  12). 

Now,  these  words  were  not  said  ironically  ;  no 
one  could  think  that.  They  were  said  serious- 
ly, inviting   men  to  follow  His  own   example. 

I  would  advise  you  also  to  read  the  opening 


248  The  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy, 

of  the  fourteenth  chapter  of  the  Apocalypse,  or 
Revelation  of  St.  John.  He  says  :  *'  I  beheld; 
and  lo  a  lyamb  stood  upon  Mount  Sion,  and 
with  him  an  hundred  forty- four  thousand  hav- 
ing his  name  and  the  name  of  his  Father 
written  on  their  foreheads.  And  I  heard  a 
voice  from  heaven,  as  the  voice  of  many  waters, 
and  as  the  voice  of  great  thunder ;  and  the 
voice,  which  I  heard,  was  as  the  voice  of  harpers, 
harping  on  their  harps.  And  they  sung  as  it 
were  a  new  canticle  before  the  throne,  and  be- 
fore the  four  living  creatures,  and  the  ancients  : 
and  no  man  could  say  the  canticle,  but  those 
hundred  forty-four  thousand,  who  were  pur- 
chased from  the  earth.  These  are  they  who 
were  not  defiled  with  women  :  for  they  are  vir- 
gins. These  follow  the  Lamb  whithersoever 
He  goeth.  These  were  purchased  from  among 
men,  the  first-fruits  to  God  and  to  the  lyamb  ; 
and  in  their  mouth  there  was  found  no  lie ;  for 
they  are  without  spot  before  the  throne  of  God. '  * 
I  think  I  have  said  enough  to  show  that  no 
Christian  can  maintain  that  virginity  is  a  thing 
practically  impossible  for  men,  even  to  be  pre- 
served through  life  ;  and  that  the  hundred  and 
forty-four  thousand  is  meant  to  represent  not  an 
exact  but  a  very  large  number  is  plain  from 
another  passage  in  the  same  revelation  (chapter 
vii.),  where  the  same  number  is  represented  as 
those  saved  among  the  children  of  Israel.     Cer- 


The  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy.  249 

tainly  that  would  be  a  pitiful  proportion  to  at- 
tain salvation  among  all  the  hundreds  of  mil- 
lions that  will  have  lived  of  God's  chosen  people. 

It  is  no  more,  then,  than  right  Christian 
faith,  as  well  as  fairness  and  justice  to  your 
neighbor,  to  believe  that  in  the  mouth  of  the 
Catholic  priesthood  professing  chastity  as  they 
do,  *'  there  is  found  no  lie."  Exceptions  there 
may  be  and  no  doubt  have  been  in  all  ages  of 
the  Church ;  there  was  a  traitor  even  among  the 
Apostles.  But  that  the  very  great  majority  of 
the  clergy  of  the  Church  live  as  they  claim  that 
they  do,  is  not  only  possible,  but  certain. 

And  the  same  thing  is  true  of  the  religious 
orders,  both  of  men  and  women.  They,  how- 
ever, besides  renouncing  marriage  and  living  in 
chastity  like  priests,  also  abandon  the  use  of 
property  by  the  vow  of  poverty,  and  the  free 
exercise  of  their  own  wills  by  the  vow  of  obedi- 
ence. They  make  every  possible  sacrifice  of 
what  men  value  in  this  world  ;  and  why  ?  In 
order  to  have  a  closer  union  with  God. 

I  have  said  something  in  the  chapter  on  the 
precepts  of  the  Church  concerning  mortifica- 
tion ;  that  is,  the  abandoning  of  the  good  things 
of  this  world  for  God's  sake.  The  religious 
orders  carry  this  to  the  highest  degree.  And 
let  no  one  say  that  to  do  so  is  superstition ;  for 
it  has  the  direct  sanction  of  Christ.  Read  the 
last  verses  of  this  same  nineteenth  chapter  of 


250  The  Celibacy  of  the  Clergy. 


Matthew  which  I  have  already  called  your  at- 
tention to.  You  will  find  there  an  account  of  a 
young  man  who  told  our  lyord  that  he  had  kept 
all  the  commandments,  and  Christ  did  not  con- 
tradict him ;  but  He  said,  *'  if  thou  wilt  be  per- 
fect, go  sell  what  thou  hast,  and  give  to  the 
poor,  and  thou  shalt  have  treasure  in  heaven : 
and  come,  follow  me."  Peter,  moved  by  this, 
and  by  what  our  lyord  also  said  about  the  diffi- 
culty of  salvation  for  the  rich,  said  to  Him : 
'*  Behold,  we  have  left  all  things  and  followed 
thee  ;  what  therefore  shall  we  have  ?  ' '  Christ 
made  to  him  and  his  companions  first  special 
promises  on  account  of  their  apostolic  office  ; 
then  He  said  ;  ' '  And  every  one  that  hath  left 
house,  or  brethren,  or  sisters,  or  father,  or 
mother,  or  wife,  or  children,  or  lands  for  my 
name's  sake  :  shall  receive  an  hundred  fold,  and 
shall  possess  life  everlasting." 

The  same  thing  is  related  in  the  tenth  chap- 
ter of  St.  Mark's  gospel,  and  the  eighteenth  of 
that  according  to  St.  Luke.  And  the  Christian 
who  would  maintain  that  our  Lord  does  not  en- 
courage what  priests  and  the  religious  orders 
practise,  has  really  no  resource  but  to  cut  these 
chapters  out  of  his  Bible. 

In  the  beginning  I  have  represented  the  celi- 
bacy of  the  clergy  as  if  it  were  principally  in- 
stituted for  the  sake  of  greater  efficiency  and 
exterior  application  to  the  work  of  the  ministry. 


Modern  Miracles,  2^t 

But  really  its  ptincipal  reason  is  that  the  priest 
by  giving  up  special  human  relations  of  love, 
however  good  in  themselves,  may  love  God 
more  ardently  and  be  united  more  closely  with 
Him  ;  and  that  his  love  of  his  fellow- men  may 
be  on  this  very  account  more  intense  and  self- 
sacrificing,  while  it  is  at  the  same  time  more 
supernatural  and  impartial.  And  the  constant 
experience  of  all  Christian  times  shows  that  the 
experiment,  if  .so  it  may  be  called,  has  been  a 
signal  success. 


CHAPTER  XXI. 

MODERN    MIRACIvES. 

ONE  of  the  great  objections  to  the  Catholic 
Church  in  the  minds  of  at  least  a  good 
many  Protestants,  is  that  she  claims  that 
miracles  are  still  worked  within  her  pale. 

Of  course  it  is  easy  to  see  that  those  who  do 
not  believe  in  the  Church  would  naturally 
doubt  or  deny  that  she  had  in  any  way  a  spe- 
cial gift  or  prerogative  of  miracles,  for  such  a 
gift  would  be  inconsistent,  at  least  if  frequently 
or  abundantly  manifested,  with  their  theory 
about  her  ;  it  would  seem  to  show,  if  admitted 
as  a  fact,  that  she  was  really  a  Divine  institu- 
tion. Naturally,  then,  Protestants  must  dis- 
credit Catholic  miracles,  or  at  any  rate   refuse 


252  Modern  Miracles, 

to  admit  that  they  are  worked  with  the  fre- 
quency that  we  claim.  One  or  two,  here  and 
there,  they  might  allow,  just  as  we  can  allow 
are,  or  may  be,  worked  outside  the  Church ; 
as,  for  instance,  Balaam  had  the  miraculous 
gift  of  prophecy  at  least  on  one  ocpasion  (Num- 
bers xxiv.)  To  show  even  more  clearly  that 
such  may  be  the  case,  we  find  in  St.  Mark's 
gospel  the  following  account :  ' '  John  answered 
him,  saying,  Master,  we  saw  one  casting  out 
devils  in  thy  name,  who  follovveth  not  us,  and 
we  forbade  him.  But  Jesus  said  :  Do  not  forbid 
him.  For  there  is  no  man  that  doth  a  miracle 
in  ni}^  name,  and  can  soon  speak  ill  of  me.  For 
he  that  is  not  against  you,  is  for  you  "  (ix.  37- 
39) .  But  the  habitual  or  frequent  working  of 
miracles,  especially  in  a  permanent  institution 
like  the  Catholic  Church,  or  the  working  of 
miracles  in  attestation  of  a  special  doctrine,  as 
that  of  Elias  against  the  prophets  of  Baal  (I. 
Kings  xviii.)  is  a  different  matter  altogether. 
It  is  then  natural,  as  I  have  said,  that  Catho- 
lic miracles,  as  we  allege  them  to  occur,  should 
be  disallowed  by  those  outside  the  Church ;  and 
that — though  it  might  be  admitted  that  a  few 
were  genuine — they  need  not  be  examined  into 
specially,  as  it  would  be  deemed  impossible 
that  any  great  number  of  them  could  be  well 
supported,  or  that  they  could  have  any  special 
significance.     And   furthermore,    it   is   natural 


Modern  Miracles,  253 

that  Protestants  should  be  indignant  at  our 
claiming  that  miracles  are  not  infrequent 
among  us ;  for  this  seems  like  falsely  arrogating 
to  ourselves    a    special  mark  of   Divine  favor. 

Nevertheless,  taking  this  ground  cannot 
make  the  Bible  Christian  altogether  easy. 
For,  it  is  recorded  in  the  sacred  text  that  our 
Lord  distinctly  predicted  that  his  disciples 
should  work  miracles.  **Amen,  amen,  I  say 
to  you,  he  that  believeth  in  me,  the  works  that 
I  do,  he  also  shall  do,  and  greater  than  these 
shall  he  do.  Because  I  go  to  the  Father" 
(John  xiv.   12-13). 

The  only  Protestant  way  of  accounting  for 
this  prediction  not  being  verified  at  the  present 
day — for  that  it  is  verified  among  Catholics  can- 
not, of  course,  be  supposed  for  a  moment — is  to 
take  the  ground  that  ' '  the  age  of  miracles  has 
passed."  Of  course  the  Bible  does  not  say 
that  it  was  going  to  pass  ;  Christ's  words,  given 
above,  seem  to  apply  to  those  who  should  truly 
believe  in  him  in  every  age.  But  there  is  no 
other  way  out  of  the  difficulty  except  that  of  be- 
lieving what  Catholics  say. 

So  Protestant  Christians  are  pretty  well 
agreed  on  this  view  of  the  matter.  But  I  am 
afraid  that  some  of  them  are  slipping  away 
gradually  to  a  somewhat  lower  ground.  They 
accept  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  because  they 
have  always  been  accustomed  to  take  them  as  a 


254  Modern  Miracles, 

matter  of  course  ;  but  they  hardly  realize  them 
as  facts.  Not  admitting  such  things  as  occur- 
ring nowadays,  they  are  gradually  coming  to 
think  that  they  could  hardly  have  occurred 
then. 

There  is,  it  is  true,  a  kind  of  reaction  setting 
in  lately  in  favor  of  the  supernatural.  Still,  it 
has  a  hard  fight  to  make  in  the  minds  of  non- 
Catholics  against  the  claim  so  loudly  made  by 
many  scientists  that  the  laws  of  nature  are  im- 
mutable. People  have  come,  on  account  of 
this  claim,  to  regard  the  law^s  of  nature  as 
being  very  much  like  those  of  mathematics, 
essentially  inherent  in  the  very  nature  of  things. 

Now,  there  is  really  no  scientific  basis — and 
here  I  speak  as  a  scientific  man — for  this  state- 
ment about  the  immutability  of  the  laws  of 
nature.  All  that  scientific  men  can  say  truly 
is,  that  in  the  observations  and  experiments 
that  they  make  they  do  not  find  these  laws 
changing  ;  that  the  apparent  anomalies  which 
present  themselves  have  been  found  to  be  re- 
ducible to  law,  and  that  it  is  reasonable  to  pre- 
sume they  can  always  be  thus  reduced.  But  to 
say  that  it  is  absolutely  certain,  for  instance, 
that  one  particle  of  matter  will  always  attract 
another  according  to  the  law  of  gravitation,  or 
other  laws  working  regularly,  is  evidently  to 
make  matter  independent  of  its  Creator ;  it  is  to 
deny  that  God  has  any  power  to  control  or  alter 


Modern  Miracles,  255 

the  action  of  the  creatures  which  He  has  made. 
It  is  really  then  to  deny  the  existence  of  God  ; 
for  the  necessary  idea  of  God  is  that  He  is 
omnipotent. 

Now,  of  course,  any  man,  scientific  or  other- 
wise, may,  if  he  choose,  deny  the  existence  of 
an  almighty  God ;  but  that  such  denial  can  be 
a  scientific  statement  is  simply  impossible,  for 
physical  science — of  course  it  is  in  that  sense 
we  are  using  the  term — does  not  and  cannot 
handle  that  question.  All  wise  and  prudent 
scientists  acknowledge  this,  and  confess  that  in 
their  discussions  they  are  only  speaking  of  the 
existence  and  operation  of  various  physical 
causes  ;  that  they  cannot  tell  for  certain  from 
their  investigations  whether  there  be  any  cause 
behind  these  or  not.  The  most  they  can  say  is 
that  nature  does  not  prove  the  existence  of  God 
to  them ;  but  to  say  that  it  disproves  it  would 
be  absurd.  They  may  say  that  God  is  unknow- 
able on  the  lines  on  which  they  work  ;  we  need 
not  inquire  whether  this  is  true  or  not ;  but  so 
far  they  are  speaking  as  scientists  ;  that  is,  they 
are  making  a  statement  about  the  matter  which 
is  their  specialty.  But  when  they  say  that  He 
is  unknowable  on  any  other  lines,  they  are 
going  beyond  the  bounds  of  their  science  ;  and 
when  they  say  He  does  not  exist,  they  are 
going  a  very  long  step  further.  They  are 
talking   as  foolishly  as   one   would   talk  who, 


256  Modern  Miracles, 

having  lived  all  his  life  in  a  dark  cellar,  should 
announce  as  the  result  of  his  observations,  that 
it  was  simply  impossible  there  should  be  such 
an  object  as  the  sun.  All  he  can  rightly  say  is 
that  the  observations  he  has  been  able  to  make 
do  not  indicate  anything  of  the  kind  ;  that  he 
sees  no  reason  to  believe  that  there  is  anything 
brighter  in  existence  than  his  gas  jet  or  kero- 
sene lamp. 

Christians,  then,  need  not  be  in  the  slightest 
degree  affected  by  statements  of  this  kind  from 
scientists.  We  believe  there  is  an  omnipotent 
God ;  and  it  necessarily  follows  from  this,  that 
He  can  change  the  laws  of  nature  if  He 
chooses.  You  probably  will  admit  that  God 
can  control  the  action  of  our  minds,  and  compel 
us  to  think  this  or  that ;  why,  then,  can  He  not 
direct  or  entirely  change  the  action  of  a  piece 
of  brute  matter,  either  permanently  or  tem- 
porarily, if  He  desires  so  to  do  ? 

But  now  I  want  to  call  your  attention  to  a 
point  generally  overlooked  in  this  question 
about  miracles.  And  it  is  this ;  that  what  is 
truly  called  a  miracle  is  not  necessarily  a  sus- 
pension or  change  of  the  laws  of  nature  at  all. 
If  that  were  admitted  as  the  definition  of  the 
word,  it  would  be  hard  to  show  that  most  of  the 
miracles  related  in  the  Bible  were  truly  such. 
Take,  for  instance,  the  passing  of  the  Israelites 
under  Moses  through  the  Red  Sea.     It  is  not  at 


Modern  Miracles.  257 

all  necessary  here  to  suppose  that  the  laws  caus- 
ing water  to  seek  a  level  were  suspended ;  no 
more  in  this  case  than  in  the  case  where  the 
waters  are  similarly  divided  by  the  hull  of  a 
ship  as  it  passes  along.  In  this  latter  case  the 
laws  are  working  all  the  time  ;  but  their  opera- 
tion is  temporarily  resisted  by  the  pressure  of 
the  ship's  sides.  So  all  we  have  to  suppose  in 
the  case  of  the  division  of  the  Red  Sea  is  that 
a  force  like  that  of  the  pressure  of  a  ship's  sides 
acts  on  the  water,  causing  it  to  stand  up,  as 
the  Scripture  tells  us,  ''as  a  wall  on  the  right 
hand  and  on  the  left." 

Now,  we  know  of  no  scientific  apparatus 
which  will  produce  such  an  effect  without  the 
introduction  of  a  material  visible  object,  like  a 
ship  ;  but  who  can  say  for  certain  that  such  an 
effect  might  not  be  produced  by  some  invention 
yet  to  be  made?  To  suppose,  however,  that 
Moses  was  in  possession  of  such  a  scientific 
secret,  would  evidently  be  the  wildest  imagina- 
tion. But  to  one  who  believes  in  the  existence 
of  mighty  beings  such  as  the  angels  are,  ac- 
cording to  the  representations  of  Scripture,  the 
problem  presents  no  difficulty.  If  to  four 
angels  (Apoc.  vii.  2)  power  was  given  to 
hurt  the  earth  and  the  sea,  surely  to  even  one 
of  them  such  a  task  as  this  would  be  very 
light,  without  having  the  laws  of  nature  sus- 
pended at  all. 


258  Modern  Miracles, 

Belief,  then,  in  what  is  often  and  rightly  call- 
ed a  miracle,  simply  requires  belief  in  the  exist- 
ence of  beings  in  themselves  imperceptible  to  our 
senses,  but  able  to  produce  effects  which  are 
perceptible,  and  whose  forces  are  not  exerted  in 
obedience  to  any  regular  laws,  in  the  sense  in 
which  we  understand  that  term  as  applying  to 
nature.  The  fact  is  that  our  own  voluntary 
movements  are  of  the  nature  of  miracles,  only 
prevented  from  being  called  so  by  the  frequency 
of  their  occurrence.  If  only  one  of  our  species 
were  gifted  with  the  faculty  of  locomotion,  the 
rest  being  stationary  and  incapable  of  move- 
ment except  under  the  influence  of  external 
forces,  like  trees,  the  movements  of  this  one 
would  seem  to  the  rest  miraculous,  especially  if 
only  seldom  occurring.  His  arm  should  hang 
down  by  his  side,  in  accordance  with  the  law 
of  gravity,  unless  raised  by  some  other  force 
acting  according  to  law,  that  is,  always  in  the 
same  way  in  the  same  circumstances.  But  we 
should  find  that  in  the  same  physical  circum- 
stances it  sometimes  hangs  down,  sometimes  is 
raised.  If  it  was  only  raised  several  times  in 
his  life,  the  raising  would  be  a  miracle;  we 
might — if  it  were  possible  under  our  supposed 
conditions — investigate  physical  laws  for  ever, 
but  we  should  never  be  able  to  explain  it. 

To  illustrate  this  further,  let  us  now  suppose 
the  man's  soul,  which  causes  bodily  movements 


Modern  Miracles.  259 

in  some  way  that  we  are  familiar  with,  but 
probably  shall  never  be  able  in  this  life  to  fully 
understand,  to  be  separated  from  his  body ;  or 
in  other  words,  that  its  usual  way — whatever 
that  may  be — of  operating  on  the  body  is  at  an 
end  ;  in  short,  that  the  man  is  dead.  Of  course 
I  am  here  assuming,  as  I  have  a  right  to  do, 
that  the  soul  can  exist  without  a  body.  Now, 
let  us  suppose  that  a  new  way  is  provided  in 
which  it  can  operate  on  the  body,  so  that  the 
body  gets  up  and  walks,  for  instance ;  here  we 
have  a  miracle.  And  yet  its  action  on  the  body 
is  no  more  reducible  to  purely  physical  laws 
before  he  dies,  than  it  would  be  should  it 
occur  after  death. 

Now,  what  absurdity  it  would  be  in  a  sci- 
entist to  maintain  that  such  a  thing  could  not 
possibly  happen!  He  may  say  indeed,  ''I  do 
not  believe  that  there  is  any  such  thing  as  a 
soul,  or  at  least  a  disembodied  one"  ;  but  he 
knows  perfectly  well  that  he  cannot  prove  this 
by  scientific  investigation.  He  is  sure,  or  if  he 
is  not,  everybody  else  is,  that  while  he  is  alive 
and  well  he  can  raise  his  arm  or  not,  as  he 
chooses  ;  how  can  he  be  sure,  or  make  any  one 
else  so,  that  he  cannot  do  so  after  his  body  goes 
through  the  change  which  we  call  death? 

All  he  can  say  is,  ''  Such  phenomena  have  not 
come  under  my  observation  "  ;  or,  in  common 
unscientific  language,  *'  I  never  saw  anything  of 


26o  Modern  Miracles. 

that  kind."  But  the  phenomena  which  he  ob- 
serves in  himself  and  other  beings  like  him- 
self during  life,  he  knows  perfectly  well  cannot 
be  accounted  for  by  physical  laws  ;  he  would 
not  be  such  a  fool  as  to  attempt  to  formulate 
laws  by  which  it  could  be  infallibly  determined 
what  his  own  or  anybody  else's  actions  would  be 
for  a  single  day.  He  may  succeed  in  doing  that 
for  the  clouds  and  the  winds  ;  but  if  he  tried  to 
do  that  even  for  himself,  he  would  most  certainly 
break  them.  Why,  then,  cannot  a  dead  body, 
or  any  other  mass  of  matter,  perform  actions  un- 
accountable by  physical  laws  ? 

The  fact  is,  then,  as  has  been  said,  that  mir- 
acles may  almost  universally  be  accounted  for 
by  supposing  the  existence  of  beings  acting 
voluntarily  as  we  act,  but  disembodied  and  im- 
perceptible to  our  senses,  and  possessed  of  more 
or  less  power  over  material  things  ;  or  if  we  are 
indisposed  to  admit  that — though  no  sound 
reason  can  be  given  for  such  indisposition — by 
granting  the  existence  of  one  such  all-powerful 
Being,  who  acts  in  and  controls  nature  on  cer- 
tain occasions  without  breaking  the  laws  of 
force  He  has  implanted  in  it,  any  more  than  we 
break  them  when  we  so  act  in  and  control  it 
frequently,  as  we  actually  do. 

But,  as  has  just  been  remarked,  no  sound 
reason  can  be  given  for  restricting  these  ex- 
traordinary occurrences  to  the  immediate  action 


Modern  Miracles,  261 


of  this  one  Being.  And  not  making  any  sucli 
restriction  is  not  only  more  reasonable,  but  it 
better  explains  what,  in  spite  of  some  scientists, 
are  really  observed  facts,  which  they  would  do 
well  to  heed. 

It  leads  also  to  the  classification  of  these  oc- 
currences into  distinct  groups.  We  find  some 
in  which,  the  interference  with  nature  being 
directed  to  no  good  end,  it  would  appear  that 
the  beings  causing  it  are  malevolent  in  their 
action,  and  are  simply  allowed  thus  to  exert 
their  bad  will ;  others  in  which  there  is  a  good 
end  or  effect,  in  which  case  it  is  to  be  supposed 
they  are  benevolent,  and  act  in  obedience  to 
God,  or  with  His  approval ;  thirdly,  some  in 
which  it  seems  more  or  less  clear  that  the  ac- 
tion is  that  of  God  Himself ;  as  would  naturally 
be  inferred  if  it  should  seem  that  His  laws  of 
nature  were  in  the  instance  suspended.  For 
it  is  His  own  action  which  constitutes  the  laws  ; 
His,  therefore,  it  would  be  to  suspend  them. 
It  is  His  to  give  power  to  His  creation ;  His, 
therefore,  to  take  away  that  which  it  regularly 
and  constantly  exerts  ;  for  it  exerts  it  in  imme- 
diate and  constant  dependence  on  Him,  and  it 
is  not  for  others  directly  to  interfere  with  it, 
though  they  may  neutralize  it  by  contrary  ac- 
tion on  their  own  part. 

It  is,  of  course,  a  difficult  matter  to  tell  for 
certain  to  which  of  these  three  classes  a  pheno- 


262  Modern  Miracles, 

menon  occurs  which  cannot  be  accounted  for 
by  natural  laws  combined  with  human  agency  ; 
so  that  it  is  hard  to  be  sure  of  the  significance 
of  such  phenomena.  It  is  a  very  dangerous 
mistake  to  confidently  adduce  those  which  can 
well  be  produced  by  evil  spirits  as  foundations 
of  a  new  religion,  or  testimonies  to  some  par- 
ticular doctrine;  that  is  plain  enough.  It  is 
equally  or  more  so  to  ascribe  what  are  really 
the  works  of  God  or  His  angels  to  devils,  as 
the  Jews  did  in  the  case  of  the  miracles  of  our 
lyord.  ''  Dearly  beloved,"  says  St.  John,  ''  be- 
lieve not  every  spirit,  but  try  the  spirits  if  they 
be  of  God  ;  because  many  false  prophets  are 
gone  out  into  the  world  "  (I.  John  iv.  i).  It 
would  be  well  if  this  advice  was  heeded  by 
those  who  become  interested  in  modern  spirit- 
ism ;  we  frequently  see  persons  who  have 
scoffed  at  its  ' '  signs  and  wonders  ' '  as  being 
mere  humbug  and  trickery,  become  convinced, 
and  on  good  grounds  too,  that  such  is  not  al- 
ways the  case,  and  then  suddenly  jump  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  alleged  truths  which  they 
are  adduced  to  prove  are  really  such.  Simply 
that  some  spirit  asserts  some  fact  with  regard  to 
the  future  life  is  in  itself  no  more  a  proof  that 
it  is  really  a  fact,  than  that  some  man  asserts 
some  fact  with  regard  to  this  life.  The  man 
may  be  a  liar;  so  may  the  spirit  too. 

The  Church  has  tests  which  it  applies  for  the 


Modern  Miracles,  263 

discernment  of  preternatural  occurrences,  vis- 
ions, revelations,  and  the  like.  St.  John  indeed 
gives  such  a  test  in  the  very  place  I  have 
quoted.  He  goes  on  to  say  (v.  2):  *' Every 
spirit,  which  confesseth  that  Jesus  Christ  is 
come  in  the  flesh,  is  of  God."  This  was  ap- 
plicable specially,  and  intended  specially  for, 
the  lying  spirits  of  his  time. 

I  have  said  it  is  a  difiicult  matter  to  discern 
the  spirits ;  it  is  also  a  difiicult  matter  to  tell 
whether  any  spirit  at  all  be  concerned  in  the 
matter,  for  it  may  of  course  be  merely  natural. 
Here    also  the  Church  is  fully  on  her   guard. 

Protestants  generally  imagine  that  the  Catho- 
lic Church  is  extremely  ready  to  accept  ap- 
parent miracles  worked  within  her  pale  as  be- 
ing really  such,  and  to  palm  them  ofi  on  the 
people.  They  think  that  we  are  really  stuffed 
by  the  Church  with,  miracles  and  legends.  It 
is  true  that  a  great  many  have  been  reported  in 
all  ages  of  the  Church,  and  are  to  be  found  in 
some  books,  particularly  in  the  lives  of  the 
saints ;  but  it  is  well  understood  by  us  that  the 
Church  does  not  make  herself  responsible  for 
all  such  stories,  or  build  in  any  way  upon  them. 

The  Church  simply  proceeds  in  the  following 
reasonable  way  :  First,  she  admits  that  super- 
natural or  preternatural  events,  divine  or  dia- 
bolical, may  occur  at  any  time.  To  deny  this  is 
simply  folly  ;    Rousseau  himself  has  said  that 


264  Modern  Miracles. 


those  who  do  so  are  only  fit  for  a  lunatic  asy- 
lum.    I  would  not  go  quite  so  far  as  that. 

Secondly,  as  to  the  great  majority  of  such 
alleged  events  she  passes  no  judgment  at  all  ; 
she  allows  them  to  be  told,  and  believed  by 
those  who  choose  to  believe  them,  as  long  as 
they  are  not  in  themselves  of  an  absurd  or 
superstitious  character.  She  also  allows  us  to 
privately  believe  them  to  be  of  divine  or  angelic 
origin,  as  long  as  they  do  not  tend  to  immoral- 
ity or  impiety. 

But  thirdly,  when  she  is  called  on  to  pass  a 
judgment  as  to  their  genuineness  and  their 
source,  and  to  allow  them  to  be  used  in  her 
name  as  a  proof  of  any  doctrine,  or  of  the  holi- 
ness of  any  individual  by  whose  co-operation 
they  are  said  to  have  been  brought  about,  she 
proceeds  with  excessive  care  and  caution. 

This  principally  occurs  in  the  canonization  of 
saints ;  that  is,  in  the  definite  determination  on 
the  part  of  the  Church  as  to  whether  or  no  it  is 
certain  that  some  person,  one  who  has  died 
with  a  reputation  for  great  and  extraordinary 
virtue,  really  was  possessed  of  such  virtue,  and 
has  therefore  become  in  the  next  life  specially 
near  and  dear  to  God  ;  so  that  he  or  she  can  be 
confidently  proposed  to  the  faithful  in  general 
as  a  model  for  their  imitation,  and  safely  and 
profitably  invoked  by  them  as  an  intercessor 
before  God. 


Modern  Miracles.  265 

On  such  occasions  a  most  strict  inquiry  is 
made  into  the  life  of  the  person  in  question,  not 
only  by  collecting  testimony  as  to  his  good  and 
virtuous  acts,  but  also  by  trying  to  pick  flaws  in 
his  virtue,  to  see  if  some  weaknesses  or  imper- 
fections cannot  be  found  in  his  character  or 
actions,  not  serious  in  themselves,  but  enough 
to  prevent  his  being  considered  an  eminent 
model  of  sanctity. 

Inquiry  is  also  made  as  to  whether  he  per- 
formed any  miracles  in  his  life-time ;  but  the 
most  important  thing  is  to  ascertain  whether 
any  have  been  worked  since  his  death  as  a  re- 
sult of  prayers  asking  his  intercession.  Catho- 
lics are  inclined  to  address  requests  for  miracu- 
lous favors,  especially  for  cures  in  dangerous 
illnesses,  to  such  as  they  believe  to  have 
crowned  an  eminently  holy  life  by  a  good  death, 
and  who,  they  think,  may  be  already  in  heaven 
without  having  had  to  pass  through  purgatory. 

It  is  necessary  for  the  canonization  of  a  saint 
that  two  miraculous  favors  should  be  clearly 
shown  to  be  obtained  after  his  death  by  his  in- 
tercession. There  are  often  rumors  of  quite  a 
number,  but  most  of  these  are  dismissed  as  im- 
possible of  proof  and  unworthy  of  attention. 
The  evidence  for  those  which  are  examined  is 
sifted  very  carefully,  and  every  possible  objec- 
tion raised  by  an  official  specially  appointed  for 
that  purpose,  the  ground  being  fought  step  by 


266  Modern  Miracles. 

step.  Those  which  are  rejected  often  have  far 
more  than  the  usual  evidence  which  is  deemed 
sufficient  in  a  court  of  law.  The  result  is  con- 
vincing to  all  who  do  not  take  the  ground, 
which  has  been  shown  to  be  absurd,  that  a 
miracle  is  impossible,  and  that  no  amount  of 
evidence  can  prove  it. 

I  trust  that  you  see  that  in  this  matter  the 
Church  simply  takes  the  ground  of  common 
sense.  At  least,  if  you  were  in  the  least  degree 
familiar  with  the  actual  facts,  you  would  see 
that  it  is  absolutely  certain  that  miracles  do 
occur,  in  accordance  with  the  promise  of  Christ, 
quite  frequently  among  us ;  but,  of  course,  with 
the  real  miracles  some  false  ones  are  mixed  up. 
To  prove  the  truth  or  reality  of  a  miracle,  it 
must  be  examined ;  it  is  merely  a  question  of 
evidence,  when  we  once  admit  the  possibility 
of  it,  as  all  sensible  men  must  do,  even  though 
they  may  not  believe  in  God.  For  to  disprove 
His  existence,  and  the  existence  of  invisible 
spirits  in  general,  free  from  the  constraint  of 
physical  laws  is,  as  has  been  remarked,  simply 
impossible.  It  is  hard  enough  in  most  cases  to 
prove  a  negative ;  in  this  case  it  cannot  be 
done. 

The  Church  does  examine  a  miracle,  when 
anything  depends  on  it.  The  rest  she  does 
not  definitely  approve;  nor,  as  a  rule,  does  she 
condemn  them  ;    she  lets  them  stand  on  their 


Modern  Miracles,  267 

own   merits.      Have   you    any  wiser   course  to 
suggest  ? 

I  would  advise  you  to  look  into  the  evidence 
upon  this  matter  a  little.  This  subject  is  so 
vast  that  of  course  I  cannot  begin  to  discuss  it 
here,  nor  could  it  be  treated  in  any  one  book. 
But  for  a  beginning,  perhaps,  nothing  better 
could  be  selected  than  the  account  of  the  mira- 
cles at  the  shrine  of  Our  I^ady  of  gourdes,  in 
France.  These  are  quite  recent,  and  going  on 
at  the  present  time  ;  and  books  about  them  can 
be  got  at  any  Catholic  book-store.  If  you  read 
about  them,  you  will  have  some  difficulty  in 
believing  that  * '  the  age  of  miracles  has 
passed."  They  are  not  legends,  or  nursery 
stories,  but  hard  solid  facts.  If  you  once  take 
up  this  subject  in  earnest,  you  will  find  that 
' '  there  are  more  things  in  heaven  and  earth 
than  are  dreamed  of  in  your  philosophy." 


CHAPTER  XXII. 

SUPERSTITION. 

CONNECTED  with  the  subject  I  have  been 
discussing  is  a  general  charge  made 
against  us,  which  I  have  already  partially  re- 
futed. It  may  be  expressed  in  this  way.  A 
Protestant  will  say  :  ' '  I  do  not  doubt  that  you 
Catholics  are  sometimes  quite  pious,  especially 
the  more  intelligent  among  you ;  many  of  you 
probably  worship  God  in  spirit  and  in  truth, 
nearly  as  well  as  we  do ;  but  such  are  better 
than  their  religion.  The  great  mass  of  your 
people  are  chock-full  of  superstition ;  they 
think  everything  of  holy  water  or  a  blessed 
candle,  and  believe  that  such  things  are  going 
to  save  their  souls ;  and  the  worst  of  it  is,  the 
Church  encourages  them  in  these  ideas.  Why, 
you  will  hear  men,  or  even  boys,  among  5^ou 
cursing  and  swearing,  and  they  think  that 
makes  no  difference  as  long  as  the  priest  has 
put  what  you  call  a  scapular  round  their 
necks." 

Well,  I  do  not  deny  that  there  are  such 
things  as  holy  water,  blessed  candles,  and 
scapulars,    nor    that    the    Church    approves  of 

them,  and   wishes   us  to    use  them.     But  that 

268 


Superstition,  269 


Catholics  think  more  of  them  than  of  the 
commandments  of  God,  or  trust  in  them  more 
than  in  genuine  piety  and  virtue,  I  do  deny 
altogether. 

Every  Catholic  that  has  any  instruction  at 
all  from  the  Church  knows  that  his  salvation 
depends  entirely  on  one  thing ;  that  is,  upon  his 
y  spiritual  state  at  the  time  of  his  death.  He 
knows  that  if  he  has  committed  mortal  sins, 
and  dies  without  repenting  of  them,  he  will  go 
to  hell ;  but  that  if  he  has  repented  of  them 
and  been  forgiven,  he  will  go  to  heaven, 
though  he  may  have  to  go  to  purgatory  first. 

At  the  same  time  he  knows  that  certain 
means  and  helps  for  him  to  attain  this  end, 
to  live  well  and  to  die  well,  have  been  estab- 
lished for  him  in  the  Church.  First  among 
these  are  the  Sacraments  instituted  by  Christ. 
But  these  are  principally  available  for  him 
when  he  is  in  the  state  of  grace  or  the  love 
of  God;  they  are  mostly  helps  for  him  to  re-v 
main  or  persevere  in  that  state,  not  to  get  into 
it  when  he  has  lost  it.  Moreover,  of  these  only 
one  can  be  approached  frequently  or  used  habit- 
ually ;  that  is  the  great  Sacrament  of  the 
Eucharist. 

When  he  is  in  the  state  of  sin — that  is,  when 
he  has  fallen  into  mortal  sin,  but  has  deter- 
mined to  repent  of  sin  and  turn  from  it — he  has, 
it  is  true,  one  Sacrament;    the  Sacrament  of 


270  Superstition, 


Penance  or  confession.  But  how  when  he  has 
not  as  yet  the  strength  or  courage  to  avail  him- 
self of  this  ?  Is  he  going  to  give  up  in  despair, 
or  simply  wait  for  God  to  change  him? 

You  will  say  he  can  pray.  Well,  we  say 
that  too ;  in  fact,  we  say  there  is  little  chance 
for  him  unless  he  does;  and  that  if  he  prays 
faithfully  and  constantly,  he  will  certainly  get 
grace  to  repent  in  earnest.  But  cannot  any- 
thing else  be  done  to  help  him  in  this  ;  to  make 
it  easier  for  him ;  to  remind  him  of  it  ?  Cannot 
he  be  surrounded  in  some  way  with  things  that 
are  holy,  that  will  suggest  holy  thoughts  to  his 
mind  ? 

The  Church  does  not  forget  her  children, 
even  though  they  may  be  in  the  power  of  Satan 
for  a  time,  and  wandering  off  in  the  ways  of 
sin.  She  is  always  going  out  into  the  desert, 
and  trying  to  save  the  sheep  that  are  lost. 
Hence  she  institutes  certain  means,  something 
like  the  Sacraments,  but  which  even  the  sinner, 
though  still  unrepentant,  can  use  without  fear 
of  sacrilege,  to  make  a  bond  between  him  and 
the  grace  which  he  has  lost ;  a  clew  by  which 
he  can  find  his  way  back  from  the  wilderness  to 
his  true  home. 

These  means  are  what  we  call  the  sacra- 
mentals;  just  such  things  as  you  have  been 
speaking  of;  holy  water,  blessed  candles,  scap- 
ulars,   and  the  like.     Take  the  scapular,   for 


Superstition.  2/1 

A — 

instance.  It  reminds  every  Catholic  of  the 
Blessed  Mother  of  God,  who  is  also  his  mother, 
and  has,  as  he  feels,  the  love  of  a  mother  for 
him,  even  though  he  be  a  sinner,  and  on  the 
way  to  ruin.  It  is  to  him  like  a  locket  with  his 
own  mother's  hair  in  it,  or  some  other  keepsake 
that  she  has  given  him.  Such  a  thing  reminds 
the  erring  son  of  his  mother's  prayers  for  him, 
of  the  example  which  she  gave  him,  and  of  the 
prayers  which  he  himself  once  said  as  a  child 
by  her  side.  Is  this  superstition?  If  not,  how 
is  it  superstition  for  a  Catholic  to  keep  on  a 
scapular,  even  if  he  feels  he  is  not  worthy  of  it  ? 
The  worst  of  it  is  that  when  he  goes  too  far,  he 
does  even  give  this  up. 

I  might  speak  similarly  of  the  other  things 
that  have  been  mentioned.  That  even  bad 
Catholics  should  have  a  devotion  to  them  is  not 
superstition,  but  a  remnant  of  the  faith  and 
piety  which  they  once  had,  and  which  they  still 
hope  to  regain.  All  these  things  have  their 
significance,  and  their  association  with  what  is 
good  and  holy ;  and  what  else,  till  he  repents, 
can  the  poor  sinner  have  ?  He  does  not  think' 
they  will  of  themselves  suffice ;  that  is  a  mis- 
take of  yours. 

However,  these  sacramentals  have  their  other 
uses.  They  are  not  instituted  simply  for  the 
purpose  I  have  set  forth.  Good  Catholics  also 
use  them ;  and,  indeed,  if  they  did  not  others 


272  Superstition. 


would  hardly  do  so,  for  it  would  be  a  confession 
or  profession  of  sin  in  themselves.  And  they 
are  believed  to  have  a  special  efficacy ;  that  by 
being  set  apart  and  blessed  by  the  Church  for 
holy  uses  exclusively,  they  become  specially 
helpful  to  all  of  us,  as  the  Sacraments  them- 
selves are,  though  in  a  less  degree ;  and  that 
they  become  like  everything  else  on  which  God 
has  set,  as  it  were,  His  seal — an  object  of  dread 
to  His  enemies,  the  fallen  angels. 

The  regular  use  of  objects  then,  or  practices, 
like  the  sign  of  the  cross,  blessed  or  recom- 
mended by  the  Church,  is  not  superstition.  Su- 
perstition is  properly  the  assigning  of  effects 
without  a  reasonable  cause ;  the  adherence  to, 
or  avoidance  of,  certain  practices  in  themselves 
senseless  and  unmeaning;  or  the  endeavor  to 
discover  the  future  or  accomplish  some  desired 
end  by  means  evidently  inadequate.  To  consult 
fortune-tellers  is  superstitious,  if  it  is  not  even 
worse ;  so  it  is  to  believe  in  dreams  ;  or  to  refuse 
to  sit  down  with  thirteen  at  table. 

Now,  of  course  I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  no 
Catholics  can  be  found  who  believe  in  things 
like  these ;  but  I  do  say  that  these  beliefs  are 
not  distinctively  or  specially  Catholic.  Also  I 
can  tell  you  that  the  influence  of  the  Church  is 
always  and  uniformly  against  these  or  any  other 
superstitions.  Of  course  she  does  not  succeed 
in  rooting  them  out  of  the  minds  or  of  the  prac- 


Superstition,  273 


tice  of  the  faithful ;  but  she  does  succeed  in 
making  them  understand  that  these  things  are 
always  more  or  less  sinful,  and  in  some  cases 
grievously  so.  All  that  listen  to  her  voice  know 
that  they  are  matters  to  be  repented  of,  to  be 
confessed,  and  to  be  abandoned ;  and  that  is  a 
great  deal  more  than  most  other  people  under- 
stand. 

If  you  say,  however,  that  Catholics  are  natu- 
rally more  prone  to  believe  such  things  than 
others  of  the  same  grade  of  education,  because 
the  habit  of  belief  is  so  much  more  exercised 
and  developed  in  them,  I  agree  that  it  would 
seem  as  if  such  ought  to  be  the  case.  But 
whether  it  be  on  account  of  the  salutary  in- 
structions which  they  receive  on  this  point,  or 
for  some  other  reason,  it  does  not  appear  that 
such  is  in  fact  the  case.  Still,  even  if  it  should 
at  any  time  be  proved  by  accurate  statistics  that 
our  people  are  slightly  more  credulous  than 
others,  it  does  not  seem  to  me  a"  very  serious 
charge.  It  is  better  to  be  slightly  supersti- 
tious than  not  to  accept  what  God  has  revealed ; 
it  is  better  to  believe  a  little  too  much  than  a 
great  deal  too  little. 


CHAPTER  XXIII. 
the:  church  opposed  to  sciknc:e:. 

NOW  we  come  to  a  charge  which,  if  it  were 
only  true,  would  indeed  be  quite  a  serious 
matter.  It  is  that  the  Catholic  Church  is  op- 
posed to  natural  science  ;  that  she  has  fought  it 
all  along  tooth  and  nail,  and  only  given  up  at 
one  point  or  another  where  she  was  obliged  to  ; 
that  she  still  objects  to  it  and  resists  it  as  far  as 
possible ;  that  she  does  not  wish  Catholics  to 
become  familiar  with  or  to  accept  its  teachings. 

Is  any  reason  alleged  why  the  Church  should 
take  this  attitude?  Oh,  yes  !  our  objectors  say 
that  the  reason  is  plain.  If  Catholics  were  al- 
lowed to  study  science,  they  would  see  the 
errors  of  their  creed  ;  they  would  see  that  what 
the  Church  teaches  is  contrary  to  the  glorious 
discoveries  of  modern  times,  and  they  would 
give  up  their  old  benighted  Church,  and  join  in 
the  march  of  thought.  "  And  then  how  would 
the  priests  get  their  living  ? ' '  some  will  go  on 
to  say ;  * '  they  live  on  the  ignorance  of  the 
people,  and  cannot  afford  to  let  them  learn  what 
science  teaches.'' 

Of  course  this  last  insinuation  is  an  insult  to 
us  ;  it  implies  that  the  whole  business  of  the 
Catholic  religion,  in  the  minds  of  its  priests,  is 


The  Church  opposed  to  Science.  275 

to  make  money  out  of  the  people,  not  to  make 
them  better  or  to  save  their  souls.  But  the 
first  part,  or  the  charge  in  general,  is  insulting 
as  well.  For  what  does  it  mean  ?  It  means 
that  we  know  our  creed  is  false,  and  will  not 
bear  the  light  of  scientific  truth  to  be  cast  on  it  ; 
well,  then,  we  are  teaching  and  professing 
something  which  we  know  to  be  a  lie. 

People  should  think  well  before  they  make 
statements  of  this  sort,  even  if  they  do  make 
them  in  ignorance.  Those  who  say  these 
things  generally  are  ignorant,  for  they  do  not 
know  what  the  Church  does  teach  ;  but  they 
ought  to  get  out  of  their  ignorance  and  know 
what  they  are  talking  about,  and  not  indulge  in 
flinging  mud  at  random. 

Perhaps  they  will  try  to  turn  the  tables  on  us 
and  say:  *' Oh  !  we  don't  mean  that  exactly. 
We  think  you  don't  know  exactly  what  science 
does  teach;  that  you  priests  are  somewhat  in 
the  dark  yourselves,  as  you  say  we  are.  We 
don't  doubt  you  are  good  men,  but  of  course 
you  are  so  occupied  with  your  masses  and 
prayers  and  ceremonies  of  one  kind  or  another, 
that  you  are  rather  behind  the  times,  and  don't 
know  all   that  science  has  lately  discovered." 

But  that  will  hardly  do  either;  for  in  that 
case,  my  scientific  friends,  why  should  we  op- 
pose it,  as  you  say  we  do  ?  If  we  really  do  op- 
pose it ;  if  we  agree  with  you  in  saying  there  is 


276  The  Church  opposed  to  Science, 

a  conflict  or  an  issue  between  science  and  reli- 
gion, you  have  no  reason  to  say  we  are  igno- 
rant of  science.  If  there  was  a  disagreement  \ 
if  you  maintained  that  science  agreed  with  reli- 
gion, and  we  said  it  did  not,  then  indeed  you 
might  say  we  were  ignorant  of  science  ;  but  the 
charge  hardly  works  as  things  stand. 

What  I  have  just  given,  however,  as  a  sup- 
posed case,  is  the  real  case,  if  we  reverse  the 
parties  in  the  discussion.  The  fact  is,  that  we 
maintain  that  science  does  agree  with  religion, 
and  you  say  it  does  not.  By  making  the  state- 
ment that  there  is  a  conflict  between  the  two, 
you  expose  your  own  ignorance,  not  necessarily 
of  science,  but  of  the  Catholic  religion. 

'*What  is  that?"  you  will  perhaps  ask. 
'  *  Do  you  mean  to  say  that  the  Catholic  Church 
endorses  evolution,  allows  that  the  human  race 
may  have  been  for  millions  of  years  on  this 
planet,  believes  that  what  is  called  the  soul  of 
man  is  only  a  result  of  certain  combinations  of 
matter,  etc.?  Why,  not  long  ago  you  your- 
self said  something  which  would  not  square 
with  this  last  conclusion." 

I  do  not  deny  that  I  did.  But  let  us  see 
what  I  said  just  now.  I  said  that  there  was  no 
conflict  between  science  and  religion ;  but  I  do 
not  mean  by  ' '  science  ' '  all  the  crude  or  half- 
baked  theories  which  scientific  men  may  put 
forward.     I  do  not  blame  them  for  putting  them 


The  Church  opposed  to  Science.  277 

forward  ;  theories,  or  what  are  called  working 
hypotheses,  are  necessary  means  for  the  ad- 
vancement of  science.  But  no  genuine  scien- 
tific man  claims  that  his  hypotheses,  put  for- 
ward and  intended  to  be  used  as  a  means  of 
directing  his  own  observations  or  experiments, 
and  those  of  others,  is  the  final  truth.  It  is  put 
up  with  the  expectation  that  it  will  be  to  a 
great  extent  demolished,  or  even  perhaps  so 
battered  out  of  shape  that  it  will  in  the  end  be 
hardly  recognizable. 

Such,  for  instance,  was  the  idea  and  the  con- 
duct of  the  immortal  Isaac  Newton,  the  per- 
fect model  of  a  truly  scientific  man,  in  propos- 
ing the  theory  of  gravitation.  He  had  shown, 
by  a  rigorous  mathematical  demonstration,  the 
most  conclusive  thing  possible,  that  the  laws  of 
Kepler  which  had  been  reasonably  well  proved 
to  explain  with  great  accuracy  the  motions  of 
some  of  the  planets  of  our  system,  and  probably 
those  of  the  rest,  could  in  their  turn  be  ac- 
counted for  by  a  force  emanating  from  the  sun 
according  to  the  law  of  gravitation.  It  was  also 
probable  that  other  bodies  beside  the  sun  ex- 
ercised a  similar  force  according  to  their  masses. 
Soitie  scientists,  if  they  had  had  the  good  luck 
or  the  intellectual  penetration  to  arrive  at  these 
conclusions,  would  have  unhesitatingly  an- 
nounced as  an  unquestionable  fact  what  New- 
ton proposed  as  a  hypotheses,  that  every  parti- 


278  The  Church  opposed  to  Science. 

cle  of  matter  attracted  every  other ^  according  to 
the  law  of  inverse  squares  which  we  call  gravi- 
tation. But  Newton  was  not  sure,  by  any 
means.  Because  things  did  not  seem  to  come 
out  quite  right  in  the  case  of  the  earth  and 
moon,  he  concluded  that  the  law  of  gravitation 
would  not  of  itself  suffice.  The  difficulty  really 
was,  that  the  size  of  the  earth  had  not  been  cor- 
rectly measured  ;  but  as  this  was  an  observed 
fact,  and  his  idea  was  only  a  theory,  Newton 
concluded  that  the  fact  was  right  and  the 
theory  at  least  partially  wrong.  But  some 
would  have  taken  just  the  opposite  course  ;  they 
would  have  discredited  the  fact ;  they  would 
have  said,  *'  The  fact  does  not  agree  with  the 
theory;  it  must  be  a  mistake." 

If  Newton  had  felt  this  sublime  confidence  in 
himself,  if  he  had  not  been  so  modest,  he  might 
have  proved  his  theory  a  little  sooner ;  he 
might  have  pushed  forward  the  measurements 
which  in  the  end  proved  him  to  be  right.  But 
he  could  afford  to  wait.  He  did  not  care  about 
a  personal  success ;  what  he  wanted  was  that 
the  truth  should  be  ascertained ;  and  that 
would  come  sooner  or  later.  In  the  meantime 
he  let  his  hypothesis  stand,  as  a  suggestion 
that  might  ultimately  be  of  some  service.  But 
he  expected  that  it  would  of  itself  be  inade- 
quate to  explain  all  the  facts. 

Now,  I  do  not  mean  to  say  by  any  means  that 


The  Church  opposed  to  Science,  279 

there  are  few  scientists  of  the  present  day  that 
have  Newton's  disposition.  Perhaps  few  carry 
it  quite  so  far  ;  and  it  may  be  better  that  they 
should  not.  But  most  of  them  have  it  sub- 
stantially. They,  at  least  those  of  them  who 
are  real  explorers  in  science,  collect  their  facts 
laboriously,  and  test  the  theories,  which  to 
direct  their  work  they  are  obliged  to  make,  by 
means  of  them  ;  ready  to  drop  or  modify  the 
theories  as  soon  as  the  facts  shall  so  indicate. 
Exceptions  there  may  be  and  are  to  this 
among  them.  But  the  principal  reason  why  so 
many  things  are  generally  believed  in  the  pres- 
ent day  to  be  discoveries  or  final  conclusions  of 
science  which  the  real  investigators  and  builders 
of  science  know  are  not  so,  is  that  there  are  a 
number  of  what  may  be  called  second-hand  or 
second-rate  men,  who  in  lectures  and  popular 
books  make  statements  of  this  kind.  These 
men  are  in  the  foreground  from  the  popular 
point  of  view  ;  they  stand,  as  it  were,  at  the 
door  of  the  temple  of  science,  within  which  its 
real  votaries  are  hidden.  These  last  are  too 
busy,  as  a  rule,  to  lecture  or  write  popular 
books  ;  and  if  they  did,  their  language  would  be 
so  technical  that  they  would  hardly  be  under- 
stood. It  is  these  middle-men,  so  to  speak, 
who  announce  one  thing  to-day,  another  to- 
morrow ;  it  is  they  who  are  mainly  responsible 
for  the  apparent  change- and  shifting  of  scien- 

/ 


28o  The  Church  opposed  to  Science, 

tific  results,  which  makes  some  people  so  dis- 
trustful of  such  results  nowadays. 

And  among  these  men,  there  is  unfortunately 
quite  a  large  class,  specimens  of  which  may  be 
found  even  among  the  workers  themselves,  who 
have  a  prepossession  or  prejudice  against  reli- 
gion ;  who  vSeize  on,  and  take  special  pains  to 
announce,  any  scientific  conclusions,  whether 
final  or  provisional,  which  seem  to  them  to  be 
in  conflict  with  Christianity.  They  dwell  on 
these  with  great  gusto  and  emphasis  ;  and  take 
special  care  to  let  them  soak  well  into  the  popu- 
lar mind.  If  these  results  are  subsequently 
modified  so  as  to  agree  better  with  the  doctrines 
held,  or  which  they  understand  to  be  held,  by 
Christians — as,  for  example,  in  the  case  of  the 
recent  trend  of  scientific  research  as  to  the  an- 
tiquity of  the  human  race — this  modification  is 
unnoticed  or  lightly  dwelt  on  by  these  popular 
exponents  of  science,  who  take  all  the  while  the 
attitude  of  advocates  rather  than  of  impartial 
judges. 

Well,  then,  as  I  have  said,  the  Church  has 
no  quarrel  with  genuine  science,  with  that 
which  is  legitimately  directed  by  truly  scien- 
tific methods  to  the  attainment  of  truth.  She 
cannot  have  such  a  quarrel ;  for  she  believes  in 
the  truth  of  what  she  preaches,  and  she  knows, 
what  all  having  the  use  of  reason  must  know, 
that  truth  cannot  contradict  truth.     But  she  has 


The  Church  opposed  to  Science.  281 

a  quarrel  with  those  of  whom  I  have  spoken, 
who  announce  as  certain  truth  what  they  ought 
to  know  well  has  not  been  proved  to  be  so. 

Nor  does  she  prohibit  any  Catholics  who  are 
competent  to  undertake  scientific  investigation 
from  doing  so.  She  places  absolutely  no  ob- 
stacle in  the  w^ay  of  their  penetrating  into  all 
the  facts  of  nature  as  it  stands,  or  of  their  con- 
sidering the  probable  indications  as  to  its  past 
history,  or  of  their  weighing  actual  historical 
testimony. 

She  does,  indeed,  caution  them  against  being 
swept  away  from  their  moorings  to  the  known 
truths  of  religion  by  the  temporary  appearances 
of  a  science  as  yet  incomplete.  She  warns  them 
also  that  in  working  on  certain  hypotheses  they 
will  be  only  losing  their  time.  In  this  she  acts 
as  Science  herself  does.  The  would-be  scientist 
who  insists  on  re-examining  conclusions  now 
solidly  established,  like  those  of  planetary  as- 
tronomy, is  simply  looked  on  by  those  who  are 
better  informed  with  a  shrug  or  a  smile.  His 
talk  is  not  noticed. 

Also  she  warns  those  weak  in  faith,  or  intel- 
lectually incompetent,  against  venturing  on 
what  to  them  personally  might  be  dangerous 
ground.  And  she  may  also,  at  certain  stages  of 
scientific  inquiry,  prohibit  the  general  and  in- 
discriminate reading  of  scientific  works  in  some 
particular  department,  on  account  of  the  prac- 


^S2  The  Church  opposed  to  Science, 

tical  impossibility  of  discernment  at  the  moment 
between  the  false  and  the  true,  the  doubtful  and 
the  certain,  the  theory  and  the  fact.  Scientific 
men  themselves,  on  purely  scientific  grounds, 
may  often  be  of  the  same  mind.  It  is  well, 
sometimes,  for  those  not  competent  to  judge 
thoroughly  of  a  subject,  to  abstain  from  med- 
dling with  it ;  it  may  do  them  more  harm  than 
good  ;  give  them  more  false  and  confused  ideas 
than  true  and  clear  ones.  Sometimes  the  words 
of  the  poet  are  specially  applicable  :  * '  A  little 
learning  is  a  dangerous  thing ;  drink  deep,  or 
taste  not  the  Pierian  spring." 

I  have  now  gone  over,  as  far  as  space  admits, 
this  matter  of  the  so-called  conflict  between  re- 
ligion and  science.  The  difficulty  has  been 
much  magnified  by  some  of  our  scientific 
friends  who  want  to  force  an  issue.  In  point  of 
fact,  there  are  not  by  any  means  so  many  even 
apparent  divergences  between  science  and  the 
Catholic  religion  as  they,  in  their  ignorance  of 
the  latter,  suppose.  Evolution,  for  instance,  in 
quite  an  extended  sense,  is  not  condemned  b}^ 
Catholic  dogma ;  when  you  assert  that  man 
was  developed,  soul  as  well  as  body,  out  of  a 
monkey,  that  is  quite  another  thing.  Again, 
the  Church  is  not  committed  to  believe  that  the 
universe,  or  even  this  planet,  was  made  in  six 
days  of  twenty-four  hours ;  nor  that  Adam  lived 
just    exactly  .so  mau}^  3'ears   ago.     If  you  say 


The  Church  opposed  to  Science.  283 

the  world  grew  of  itself,  o;:  that  matter  existed 
from  all  eternity,  or  that  man  has  been  here 
millions  of  years  ;  that  again  is  something  quite 
different.  But  you  notice  that  these  things 
which  the  Church  cannot  accept  are  nothing 
more  than  mere  hypotheses  or  private  opinions, 
not  vScientific  results. 

Of  course  I  cannot  undertake  here  to  explain 
the  whole  of  Catholic  dogma  on  the  subjects 
which  may  also  be  discussed  by  natural  science  ; 
but  I  can  tell  you  that  no  Catholic  scientist 
well  instructed  in  his  religion  finds  anything 
in  religion  or  science  which  tempts  him  to  give 
up  either. 

And  there  are  great  numbers  of  Catholic 
scientific  men,  and  have  been  in  all  ages. 
Catholics  have  perhaps  not  emphasized  or  culti- 
vated natural  science,  in  proportion  to  their 
numbers,  so  much  as  others ;  they  have  more 
important  matters  to  attend  to.  But  they  have 
by  no  means  neglected  it  ;  if  you  will  look  into 
the  matter,  you  will  find  that  the  Church  has 
furnished  a  great  number  of  its  brightest  names. 

One  word  more  to  those  who  have  a  strong 
belief  in  many  of  the  doctrines  of  Christianity, 
but  differ  from  us  ;  to  those  who  are  commonly 
called  orthodox  Protestants.  The  scientific 
enemies  of  religion  do  not  direct  their  attacks 
much  against  you,  for  they  know  that  Protes- 
tantism,   on     account   of    its    multiplicity    and 


284  The  Church  opposed  to  Science. 

changeableness,  cannot  commit  itself  to  any- 
thing ;  but  they  know  that  if  they  could  beat 
down  or  really  disprove  one  tenet  of  the  Catho- 
lic Church,  the  whole  structure  would  go  to 
pieces.  But  let  me  tell  you  that  there  is  no 
danger  of  that;  we  are  not  at  all  alarmed.  The 
progress  of  science  may  disquiet  you  and  make 
you  think  Christianity  is  untenable  ;  that  the 
head  must  abandon  it,  letting  it  take  its  refuge 
in  the  heart.  But  we  are  not  disquieted  ;  we 
know  that  it  has  never  interfered  with  any  of 
the  dogmas  of  our  faith,  and  that  it  never  will  ; 
and  if  3^ou  were  Catholics,  you  would  know  the 
same  ;  you  would  know  that  the  Catholic  reli- 
gion will  always  satisfy  the  requirements  of  the 
intellect,  as  well  as  the  cravings  and  aspirations 
of  the  soul. 

There  remains  however,  very  probably,  an 
objection  in  your  minds  which  I  will  put  in 
definite  shape.  It  is  that  the  Church,  by  its 
decrees  and  definitions,  at  any  rate  impedes  the 
freedom  of  thought ;  that  those  who  have  no 
faith  at  all,  or  those  who  are  at  liberty  to 
change  their  opinions  at  any  time,  can  pursue 
scientific  study  under  better  conditions,  to  say 
the  least,  than  we  can.  This  point  has  already 
been  lightly  touched  on  in  this  chapter  ;  but  as 
so  much  is  often  made  of  it,  and  in  other  matters 
beside  those  relating  to  science,  it  seems  worth 
while  to  go  into  it  somewhat  more  thoroughly. 


CHAPTER  XXIV. 

THK    CHURCH    OPPOSED   TO   I.IBKRTY   OP 
THOUGHT. 

THIS  is  a  charge  which  is  very  frequently 
made  against  the  Catholic  Church ;  more 
frequently,  perhaps,  and  more  uniformly,  than 
any  other  ;  and  that  even  by  those  who,  on  the 
whole,  are  very  well  disposed  to  us.  Such  a 
friend  will  sometimes  say  :  ' '  I  certainly  envy 
you  Catholics  the  peace  and  rest  of  mind  that 
you  enjoy  ;  it  must  be  a  great  blessing  to  have 
some  one  who  can  and  will  answer  for  you  all 
these  questions  which  so  much  disturb  all 
thinking  men ;  I  sometimes  wish  that  I  could 
do  as  you  do,  and  take  the  word  of  old  Mother 
Church  for  everything  ;  but  I  cannot  make  up 
my  mind  to  abandon  my  reason  and  my  liberty 
of  thought,  for  these  are  greater,  better,  and 
nobler  things  than  peace  and  rest  would  be.'' 
Now,  I  do  not  want  to  use  harsh  terms,  or 
speak  contemptuously  of  any  one ;  but  I  must 
respectfully  submit  that  this  sort  of  talk,  com- 
mon as  it  is,  and  uttered  by  sensible  people  too, 
is  really  little  better  than  nonsense.  And  I 
think,  if  you  will  consider  the  matter  patiently 
for  a  few  moments,  you  will  see  that  I  am  right. 
285 


286     Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thoughts 

The  word  liberty  has,  and  rightly  has,  an  at- 
tractive sound  to  all  of  us  ;  the  idea  of  liberty 
is  one  which  we  all  fondly  cherish,  especially 
in  a  republic  like  this  in  which  we  have  the 
good  fortune  to  live  ;  it  is  an  idea  which  we  are 
ready  to  fight  for  and  to  die  for. 

But  let  us  look  at  it  more  closely.,  and  see 
why  we  value  liberty,  and  object  to  its  being 
restrained.  It  is  because  we  look  on  such  re- 
straints as  preventing  us  from  acting  as  reason 
would  dictate,  or  at  leavSt  as  seems  to  us  best. 
When  we  see  clearly  that  a  thing  is  in  every 
way  injurious  to  us,  we  do  not  chafe  at  being 
prevented  froni  doing  it  as  we  otherwise  might, 
through  ignorance  or  inattention.  To  take  a 
plain  example :  a  street  is  impassable  for  a 
time  on  account  of  some  excavations  which  are 
being  made  ;  the  city  puts  up  a  barrier  at  each 
end  of  the  part  under  repair,  placing  a  physical 
obstacle  to  our  going  through.  We  drive  up  to 
the  place  in  our  carriage,  and  have  to  turn  back 
and  go  some  other  way.  Do  we  complain  ?  do 
we  want  to  have  liberty  to  drive  up  to  the 
edge  of  the  hole,  and  perhaps,  if  it  be  dark  or 
the  horse  at  all  skittish,  fall  into  it  ?  Well, 
hardly. 

I  think  that  will  do  for  the  matter  of  liberty 
of  action.  Let  us  now  look  at  that  of  liberty  of 
thought,  which  is  our  special  subject  just  now. 
And  let  us  take  an  example  here  also. 


ItririTgEstTTi 

Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought,     287 

You  know,  I  suppose,  that  we  never  see  but 
one  side  of  the  moon.  There  it  is  month  after 
month,  year  after  year,  with  the  same  old  fa- 
miliar markings.  If  you  don't  know  this, 
watch  it  carefully,  and  you  will  see  that  it 
is  so. 

Now,  of  course  the  moon  has  got  another 
side ;  and  we  can't  help  speculating  to  some 
extent  as  to  how  that  other  side  would  look, 
though  it  really  is  not  of  much  use  to  do  so,  for 
we  have  no  data  to  go  upon.  Still,  it  is  con- 
ceivable that  some  such  data  might  at  some 
time  be  obtained,  enough  to  form  some  sort  of 
opinion  on ;  and,  if  they  were,  it  would  surely 
be  very  unjust  to  forbid  us  from  forming  such 
an  opinion. 

But  now  suppose  that  a  way  is  discovered  of 
actually  seeing  the  other  side,  like  the  theoreti- 
cally possible  one  given  in  Jules  Verne's  trip  to 
the  moon,  by  shooting  a  projectile  round  it  froiu 
the  earth,  with  people  in  the  projectile.  Proba- 
bly we  would  not  all  care  to  make  such  a 
trip  ;  but  suppose  that  quite  a  number  of  repu- 
table citizens  had  made  it,  and  that  some  had 
even  taken  kodaks  with  them ;  and  that  their 
accounts  and  the  photographs  which  they  had 
taken  all  agreed. 

Don't  you  see  now  that  our  mental  position 
with  regard  to  the  matter  has  changed  ?  Spec- 
ulation can  no  longer  be  of  advantage  to  us; 


288     Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought, 

and  we  could  rightly  be  forbidden,  on  the 
ground  of  waste  of  time,  to  speculate  on  a 
matter  which  is  no  longer  one  of  opinion,  but 
of  ascertained  fact.  It  has  become  a  thing 
which  we  cannot  rationally  do  or  desire ;  nay, 
it  has  become  even  impossible  for  us  to  seri- 
ously speculate  on  the  subject,  or  have  opinions 
at  all.  We  are  forced,  by  the  very  laws  of 
rational  nature,  to  accept  the  credible  and  cer- 
tain testimony  that  we  have,  and  stop  speculat- 
ing. Our  liberty  of  thought  on  this  matter  has 
gone. 

Now,  this  is  only  a  supposed  case ;  but  there 
are  plenty  of  actual  ones  in  our  life  all  the  time. 
A  few  years  ago  it  was  quite  lawful  to  specu- 
late as  to  the  sources  of  the  Congo  River  in 
Africa  ;  but  now  that  Stanley,  and  after  him 
quite  a  number  of  others  have  visited  them,  we 
have  lost  our  liberty  of  thought  on  this  sub- 
ject. 

In  fact,  every  step  of  the  increase  of  knowl- 
edge, of  which  in  these  latter  days  we  are  so 
justly  proud,  is  a  blow  at  liberty  of  thought, 
and  a  circumscription  of  it,  or  a  restraint  put  on 
it.  If  we  have  common  sense,  we  cannot  now 
speculate  vaguely  as  to  the  distance  of  the  sun 
from  the  earth,  or  the  ratio  of  the  circumference 
of  a  circle  to  its  diameter ;  for  we  kriow  that 
distance  with  considerable,  and  that  ratio  with 
almost  inconceivable,  accuracy.     These  are  just 


Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought.     289 

two  examples  out  of  thousands  which  might  be 
given. 

Now  one  point  more.  Some  things  that  we 
know,  and  cannot  speculate  about,  we  know  by 
our  own  senses  and  personal  investigations  ;  but 
a  great  many,  like  those  which  I  have  just  men- 
tioned, few  know  in  this  way.  How,  then,  do 
we  know  them  ?  By  the  concurrent  testimony 
of  competent  witnesses  or  judges.  This  has 
created  in  us  a  certainty  so  absolute  that, 
struggle  as  we  may,  we  cannot,  if  we  are 
sensible  men,  get  away  from  it.  Contrary  ideas 
may,  of  course,  occur,  or  w^e  may  bring  them  up 
voluntarily  to  our  minds ;  but  we  cannot  suc- 
ceed in  giving  any  real  assent  to  them,  or  seri- 
ously entertaining  them  as  opinions.  The  lib- 
erty of  thought  which  our  forefathers  had  on 
these  matters  is  lost  to  us. 

But  you  say  that  the  surrender  of  our  reason 
to  reason  itself,  so  to  speak,  which  we  make  in 
the  instances  I  have  named,  and  no  doubt  in 
many  others,  is  a  very  different  thing  from  giv- 
ing it  up  at  the  command  of  the  Church.  I 
answer,  by  no  means.  This  is  just  where,  from 
lack  of  thought  and  knowledge  on  the  subject, 
you  make  your  mistake. 

Our  assent  to  the  teachings  of  the  Church  is 
really  an  act  similar  to  the  assent  which  both 
you  and  we  make  to  Stanley's  discoveries  in 
Central  Africa.     Your  mistake  about  it  arises 


290     Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought. 

from  your  not  understanding  what  faith  is. 
You  have  been  so  long  without  it,  so  long  ac- 
customed in  religious  matters  to  give  the  name 
of  faith  to  speculation  or  opinion,  that  you 
really  have  forgotten  the  meaning  of  the  word. 

Faith  really  is  an  assent  to  testimony  ;  and  it 
is  a  rational  or  common  sense  act  when  the 
testimony  is  credible  and  unimpeachable.  It  is 
very  specially  and  peculiarly  so  when  the  testi- 
mony is  that  of  Almighty  God. 

Now,  our  belief  in  the  dogmas  of  the  Church 
is  an  act  just  of  this  character.  It  is  not  a 
blind  submission  or  obedience  to  a  command, 
but  an  assent  to  a  revelation  or  a  statement  of 
fact  made  to  us  by  none  less  than  God  Himself. 
He  informs  us  on  subjects  which  are  beyond 
the  reach  of  our  senses  or  any  of  our  natural 
faculties  ;  beyond  the  reach  of  all  of  us,  just  as 
many  facts  of  nature  or  conclusions  of  mathe- 
matics, like  those  which  I  have  mentioned,  are 
beyond  the  reach  of  most  men. 

"Well,'*  you  may  rejoin,  *'but  how  do  you 
know  that  it  is  God  who  informs  you  about 
these  matters?  "  I  answer,  simply  by  what  we 
call  the  evidences  of  religion.  Really  very 
much  in  the  same  way  as  you  would  assure 
yourself  that  your  informant  on  astronomical, 
mathematical,  or  geographical  matters  was  in 
fact  the  authority  on  these  subjects  that  he 
claimed  to  be.     In  the  case  of  religion,  setting 


Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought,     291 


aside  the  direct  action  of  God  on  the  soul  in  a 
supernatural  way,  which  raises  our  act  to  a  su- 
pernatural plane,  the  proof  is,  in  the  first  place, 
principally  by  the  miracles  or  signs  by  which 
He  accompanies  His  statement.  Thus  Nicode- 
mus  said  to  our  lyord  :  "  Rabbi,  we  know  that 
thou  art  a  teacher  from  God  ;  for  no  man  can  do 
these  ^igns  which  thou  dost,  unless  God  be  with 
Him."  The  miracles  of  our  Lord  Himself,  of 
His  apostles,  and  of  their  followers,  continued 
in  the  Church,  as  has  been  said  and  is  plain  to 
all  who  will  study  the  evidence,  down  to  the 
present  day,  are  sufficient  in  themselves  to  show 
us  in  whose  name  the  Church  speaks ;  for  they 
are  not  only  wonders,  but  wonders  which  bear, 
on  examination,  the  stamp  of  God  upon  them. 

We  could  now,  however,  almost  dispense 
with  these  proofs  of  religion.  The  very  im- 
possibility in  itself  of  a  merely  human  institu- 
tion teaching  for  nearly  two  thousand  years  the 
same  doctrine ;  not  merely  repeating  a  form  of 
words,  but  teaching  a  living  system  of  belief 
regarding  matters  unascertainable  by  reason ; 
answering  questions  regarding  it,  often  quite 
complicated  and  abstruse,  and  yet  never  be- 
trayed, in  spite  of  the  personal  ignorance  of 
history  or  theology  among  its  teaching  body 
which  has  largely  existed  at  various  periods 
and  more  or  less  at  all  times,  into  a  single  con- 
tradiction or  inconsistency,  is  in  itself  a  suffi- 


292     Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought, 

cient  proof  that  a  superhuman  wisdom  is  guid- 
ing and  directing  it. 

Again,  the  survival  of  the  mere  organization 
of  the  Church,  and  the  very  fact  of  the  obedi- 
ence, assent,  and  harmony  existing  within  it, 
though  unaided  by  material  force,  in  contrast  to 
the  insubordination,  doubt,  and  discord  which 
have  come  into  Christian  bodies  separated  from 
it,  are  in  themselves  a  strong  proof  to  many. 

Well,  now,  say,  if  you  please,  that  our  evi- 
dence is  not  as  good  as  we  think ;  the  fact  re- 
mains that  we  believe  because  we  are  con- 
vinced, not  on  account  of  any  external  pressure. 
But  now,  perhaps,  you  resume  :  "  This  may  be 
all  very  well  for  the  learned  and  intelligent ;  but 
how  are  these  considerations  which  you  have 
named  an  argument  for  the  common  people  who 
have  not  much  reasoning  ability?"  I  think 
you  may  possibly  make  this  objection  ;  but  still 
if  you  do,  I  am  a  little  surprised.  For  I  under- 
stood that  you  were  one  of  the  persons  who  had 
reasoning  ability,  and  that  your  objection  was 
in  the  beginning  that  you  did  not  want  to 
abandon  it.  I  thought  it  only  applied  to  think- 
ing men.  If  one  has  not  got  much  use  of  rea- 
son, certainly  it  is  not  a  tyranny  that  he  should 
be  taught  by  others  who  have.  No  one  says 
that  it  is  subjecting  a  child  to  a  mental  slavery 
when  we  teach  him  his  alphabet ;  the  child,  no 
doubt,    may   complain   that    his  liberty   is  re- 


Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought.     293 

stricted  by  the  process,  but  it  is  not  his  liberty 
of  thought  that  worries  him.  He  may  say  that 
he  wants  to  play,  but  he  does  not  say  :  *'  Never 
mind  about  teaching  me  ;  I  can  find  out  all  this 
by  myself"  ;  or  if  perchance  he  does  say  it,  he 
does  not  know  what  he  is  talking  about. 

In  the  same  way,  then,  as  we  teach  a  child 
the  alphabet  we  teach  him  religion  ;  just  as  you 
teach  him  geography,  because  you  know  it 'is 
true.  But  we  do  not  want  to  keep  him  down  to 
an  abject  belief  in  us  as  his  instructors.  We 
want  him,  we  want  all  Catholics,  so  far  as  in 
them  lies — and  all  other  people  too,  for  the  mat- 
ter of  that — to  study  these  evidences  of  religion. 
That  is  precisely  what  our  Christian  schools  are 
for ;  to  make  all  our  people  believe  in  their  re- 
ligion intelligently,  instead  of  taking  it  for 
granted.  We  want  that  any  restrictions  there 
are  on  their  liberty  of  thought  should  be  such 
as  they  themselves  see  are  necessary  for  a  rea- 
sonable being. 

We  do  not,  of  course,  want  that  their  heads 
should  be  stuffed  full  of  statements  which  we 
know  are  false,  or  that  doubts  which  they  have 
not  the  means  of  settling  should  be  put  into 
their  minds  as  to  what  we  know  is  true.  But 
in  this  we  act  just  as  you  do  about  secular 
knowledge.  You  do  not  want  false  or  inaccu- 
rate text-books ;  you  do  not  put  two  histories, 
one    correct,    the   other   full    of    errors,    before 


294     Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought. 

students,  for  them  to  take  whicliever  they 
choose. 

In  short,  there  is  nothing  in  our  action  in  this 
whole  matter  different  from  yours,  except  what 
comes  from  the  fact  that  in  religion  we  are  sure 
about  the  truth,  while  you  are  doubtful.  If 
Bible  Christians  agreed  about  the  sense  of  the 
Bible  as  we  do  about  the  Catholic  faith  ;  if  their 
Word  of  God  was  really  a  practical  and  avail- 
able Word  of  God  to  them,  clearly  settled  and 
demonstrated,  as  ours  is  to  us,  they  would  con- 
sider liberty  of  thought  about  it  a  mistake,  and 
a  dangerous  one,  as  it  is,  more  or  less  according 
to  the  importance  of  the  subject,  about  all 
things  which  are  really  known  and  definitely 
ascertained.  On  such  matters  there  is  no 
advantage  in  surmising  or  guessing;  one  is 
much  better  off  to  know  the  truth  at  once. 
And  we  Catholics  know  and  admit  this  obvious 
piece  of  common  sense ;  and  the  more  intelli- 
gent a  Catholic  may  be,  the  more  clearly  he 
sees  it. 

Therefore,  do  not  fancy  that  Catholics  are 
chafing  and  fretting  secretly  over  their  inability 
to  indulge  in  religious  speculations.  There  is, 
in  fact,  no  occasion  for  them  to  do  so,  if  they  are 
fond  of  this  sort  of  mental  occupation  ;  for  there 
are  a  vast  number  of  points  on  which  they  are 
quite  free  to  form  opinions ;  which  are  not  set- 
tled by  the  Church,  and  which  in  all  proba- 


Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought.     295 

bility  form  no  part  of  the  faith,  and  therefore 
never  will  be  so  settled.  The  number  of  such 
points  is  probably  practically  greater  for  us 
than  it  is  for  you.  The  fixing  of  the  funda- 
mental principles,  or  indeed  the  determination 
of  any  of  the  laws  of  any  science,  always  opens 
up  a  number  of  questions  which  otherwise 
would  not  be  thought  of ;  and  what  is  true  of 
sciences  in  general  is  true  of  theology  in  par- 
ticular. If  one  is  always  worrying  about  first 
principles,  which  necessarily  are  comparatively 
few,  one  never  gets  any  further,  and  has  his 
mental  range  much  restricted. 

Neither  should  you  imagine,  as  is  plain  from 
what  has  been  said,  that  Catholics  have  to  be 
always  struggling  to  stifle  their  doubts  about 
those  matters  which  do  not  belong  to  faith,  and 
have  been  definitely  settled.  They  do  not  have 
to  do  so,  any  more  than  you  have  to  about  the 
matter  of  some  science  with  which  you  may  be 
somewhat  imperfectly  acquainted.  They  know 
that  they  can  study  up  the  matter  of  religion  in 
correct  and  profound  treatises,  if  they  like,  just 
as  matters  of  science  can  be  studied.  But  they 
feel  quite  confident  of  their  faith  vfithout  doing 
so,  just  as  you  do,  though  you  may  not  be  a 
man  of  science,  about  the  determined  laws  of 
astronomy  or  chemistry.  And  they  feel  no 
more  need  to  study  the  works  of  Protestants 
or  infidels  to  obtain  information   about  religion 


296     Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought, 


than  you  do  to  read  the  pamphlet  of  some 
would-be  astronomer  who  thinks  he  has 
smashed  gravitation  to  pieces,  and  refuted 
Newton  or  lyaplace  ;  non-Catholic  speculations 
about  religion  are  to  an  intelligent  Catholic 
simply  unscientific  trash. 

That  is  to  say,  they  feel  and  act  in  this  way 
unless  they  have  some  private  reason  for  hoping 
that  the  faith  might  not  be  true.  They  know, 
of  course,  that  it  is  a  restraint,  not  on  their  in- 
tellect but  on  their  passions ;  for  any  religion 
coming  from  God  must  necessarily  be  this. 
And  this  restraint,  indeed,  may  cause  some 
chafing  and  fretting.  It  is  our  unvarying  ex- 
perience that  Catholics  do  not  look  out  for  argu- 
ments against  their  religion  unless'  they  wish  to 
escape  from  its  control  iji  this  respect ;  or,  what 
comes  to  the  same  thing,  unless  they  want  to 
enjoy  some  temporal  good  which  cannot  be 
gained  without  renouncing  their  faith.  Of 
course  I  can  hardly  expect  you  to  believe  that 
I  am  right  in  this;  but  it  is  true,  all  the  same. 
It  is  not  merely  a  conclusion  of  theory ;  it  is  a 
result  of  observation. 

It  may  be  noticed  that  the  charges  discussed 
in  these  two  chapters  are,  strangely  enough, 
directly  opposed  to  each  other.  The  charge 
that  the  Church  is  opposed  to  science  is  really 
that  she  is  opposed  to  that  which  itself  prevents 
liberty  of  thought  by  giving  us  certain  informa- 


Church  opposed  to  Liberty  of  Thought,     297 


tion.  It  may  be  said,  however,  that  she  desires 
liberty  of  thought  on  some  matters,  but  forbids 
it  on  others.  This  is  true,  but  not  in  the  sense 
in  which  it  is  intended.  She  forbids,  as  against 
reason,  common  sense,  and  the  welfare  of  man, 
liberty  of  thought  on  matters,  whether  in  the 
material  or  spiritual  order,  which  have  been 
clearly  demonstrated  and  definitely  ascertained  ; 
she  refuses  to  abandon  it  on  those  which  are 
still  open  to  reasonable  question,  as  is  the  case 
with  certain  scientific  hypotheses  not  as  yet 
proved.  You  may  disagree  with  her  in  your 
judgment  of  what  is  certain  and  what  is  doubt- 
ful ;  but  except  for  this,  there  is  no  difference 
between  her  action  and  your  own. 


CHAPTER  XXV. 

THK    CATHOI.IC    CHURCH    OPPOSED    TO    FREK 
INSTITUTIONS. 

IT  is  a  charge  very  commonly  made  against 
the  Church,  that  she  is  opposed  to  free  in- 
stitutions. This  charge,  the  truth  of  which  is 
usually  simply  taken  for  granted,  is  one  which 
naturally  prejudices  Americans  more  against 
her  than  any  other  which  could  be  made.  For 
Americans,  as  a  rule,  are  most  profoundly  at- 
tached to  the  free  institutions  under  which  they 
live,  and  most  absolutely  convinced  that  de- 
mocracy is  better  than  monarchy  or  aristocracy 
in  any  form. 

Now,  I  say  the  truth  of  this  most  injurious 
charge  against  the  Church  is  usually  simply 
taken  for  granted.  But  surely  such  a  proceed- 
ing is  far  from  being  fair.  I  should  like  to 
have  a  reason  given  for  it ;  and  shall  try,  there- 
fore, to  find  out  what  reasons  there  are  likely 
to  be. 

The  most  obvious  one  seems  to  be  that  the 
government  of  the  Church  is  itself  monarch- 
ical. This  statement  is  true,  in  a  certain 
sense,  no  doubt.  The  Pope  is  unquestion- 
ably the  supreme  authority  in  matters  of 
298 


The  Church  opposed  to  Free  Institutions,    299 


faith  and  morals  ;  that  is,  his  consent  is  neces- 
sary and  sufficient  to  establish  the  truth  in  con- 
troverted questions  on  these  subjects.  This 
authority  is,  however,  rarely  exercised ;  and 
when  it  is,  it  is  usually  merely  to  place  beyond 
controversy  a  point  already  very  nearly  settled 
by  the  popular  voice.  So  that  here,  after  all, 
we  very  rarely  have  any  strain  put  on  our 
minds   by  obedience  to  his  infallible   decision. 

Then  again,  it  is  true  that  in  matters  of  dis- 
cipline the  Pope  is  the  supreme  legislator.  He 
has  absolute  control  over  all  inferior  legislators 
in  the  Church  ;  he  can  reform  or  abrogate  laws 
made  by  bishops  in  their  dioceses,  if  it  seems  to 
him  expedient  to  do  so  ;  and  he  can  make  laws 
for  the  universal  Church  which  are  binding 
without  the  consent  of  his  Jnferiors.  But  here 
again,  such  action  on  his  part  is  very  rare. 
Outside  of  the  matter  of  the  rubrics — that  is,  of 
the  prayers  or  ceremonies  of  public  worship — 
legislation  of  this  kind  is  unusual,  as  is  also 
interference  with  the  action  of  his  subordinates. 
The  fact  is,  that  both  their  action  and  his  are 
usually  simply  in  accordance  with  fixed  tra- 
ditional principles,  modified  more  or  less  ac- 
cording to  the  circumstances  of  particular 
times  or  places  ;  with  which  those  living  on  the 
spot  .  are  generally  supposed  to  be  best  ac- 
quainted. 

In  point  of  fact,  then,  Rome  legislates  very 


300    The  Church  opposed  to  Free  Institutions, 


little,  for  the  very  simple  reason  that  there  is 
very  little  need  that  she  should  do  so.  The 
work  of  the  Church  proceeds  on  its  regular  lines 
throughout  the  world  mainly  by  means  of  the 
zeal  and  energy  of  the  clerg}^  and  of  the  laity 
co-operating  with  them ;  and  it  is  seldom  that 
this  needs  to  be  specially  directed  or  controlled. 
The  idea,  so  common  among  Protestants,  that 
everything  done  by  Catholics  is  done  by  virtue 
of  secret  orders  from  Rome,  is  simply  ludicrous 
to  those  at  all  acquainted  with  the  actual  state 
of  things.  In  reality,  Rome  seldom  initiates  ; 
as  a  rule  she  merely  sanctions  or  allows  ;  some- 
times she  checks  or  restrains,  or  perhaps  for- 
bids. For  example,  take  the  case  of  the  found- 
ing of  a  new  religious  order  or  community,  by 
which  we  mean  such  as  the  Jesuits,  Dominicans, 
or  Franciscans,  or  numbers  of  others  less  nota- 
ble or  conspicuous.  The  first  idea  of  an  order 
like  this  is  formed  by  some  priest  or  even  lay- 
man, having  no  special  authority  in  the  Church  ; 
he  associates  with  himself  some  friends  and 
sympathizers,  and  they  form  a  little  society, 
with  the  permission,  probably,  of  the  bishop  of 
the  diocese.  After  some  years,  especially  if  the 
society  has  grown  and  been  established  in 
various  dioceses,  the  approval  of  Rome  may  be 
asked  ;  but  it  takes  some  time  to  obtain  it. 
Meanwhile  the  avssociation  or  order  goes  on  do- 
ing the  w^ork  for  which  it  was  established,  very 


The  Church  opposed  to  Free  Institutions,    301 

much  as  it  would  if  there  were  no  Pope  at  all  to 
say  anything  about  it.  The  definite  Papal  ap- 
proval is,  of  course,  a  great  thing  for  it ;  but 
its  real  success  or  failure  depends  principally  on 
the  zeal  and  virtue  of  its  members ;  Rome 
simply  waits  to  see  if  it  has  the  elements  of  life 
and  strength  in  it ;  it  does  not  undertake  to 
give  these  to  it,  or  to  establish  by  its  decrees 
what  would  not  otherwise  exist. 

What  is  true  of  great  matters  is  also  true  of 
lesser  ones.  Any  one  familiar  with  the  practi- 
cal working  of  the  Church  knows  that  it  is  very 
far  from  being  in  practice  a  strong  centralized 
government,  the  pressure  of  which  is  felt  con- 
tinually throughout  its  dominions ;  still  farther 
from  being  a  military  organization,  every  part 
of  which  acts  by  orders  from  headquarters. 

Of  course  I  know  it  will  be  hard  for  many  to 
believe  this ;  and  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to 
prove  the  truth  of  what  I  say  about  a  matter  of 
this  kind  to  those  who  are  not  willing  to  believe 
it.  It  is,  indeed,  only  by  being  a  Catholic  that 
one  can  fully  understand  and  realize  these 
things.  I  must  content  myself  with  simply 
stating  facts. 

If  you  ask  why  the  government  of  the 
Church  should  be  monarchical,  the  answer 
seems  evident  enough.  It  is  plain,  in  the  first 
place,  with  regard  to  matters  of  faith,  that  the 
amount  of  supernatural  assistance   required  is 


302    TJie  Church  opposed  to  Free  Institutions, 


much  less  on  this  system  than  on  any  other 
which  could  be  devised;  and  secondly,  with 
regard  to  matters  of  discipline,  as  the  general 
government  is  mainly  occupied,  not  with  mak- 
ing general  laws,  but  with  the  decision  of  par- 
ticular questions,  a  representative  government 
would  be  intolerably  cumbrous  and  incon- 
venient. It  would  be  much  the  same  as  if  for 
the  business  of  the  Supreme  Court  it  were 
necessary  to  hold  a  convention  of  all  the 
lawyers  in  the  country.  When  any  important 
changes  are  to  be  made  in  the  general  laws  of 
the  Church,  it  is  customary  to  convoke  a  gen- 
eral council ;  but  this  seldom  needs  to  be  done. 

So  much,  then,  for  the  monarchical  constitu- 
tion of  the  Church  itself.  But  another  argu- 
ment is  often  made  to  show  that  the  Church 
sympathizes  with  monarchy  in  general,  and  is 
opposed  to  free  institutions  ;  namely,  that  the 
Church  has  been  generally  allied  with  mon- 
archies in  actual  history. 

This  is  again  true  as  a  statement  of  fact ;  but 
when  we  come  to  look  at  it,  it  really  has  no 
significance.  For  it  simply  comes  from  two 
causes,  neither  of  which  can  justly  be  a  ground 
of  complaint  against  the  Church.  The  first  is 
that  the  Church  has  always  been  a  supporter  of 
legitimate  government,  and  opposed  to  anarchy; 
the  Church,  from  the  days  of  our  I^ord  Himself, 
who   said,     ' '  Render    unto    Caesar   the   things 


The  Church  opposed  to  Free  Institutions,    303 

which  are  Caesar's,"  has  always  upheld  aiK^ 
sanctioned  the  authority  of  the  State.  The 
second  is  that  most  governments  have  been 
monarchical ;  so  that  in  supporting  govern- 
ment, it  has  usually  supported  monarchy  neces- 
sarily. But  the  Church  has  always  recognized 
and  supported  popular  governments  where  they 
existed.  It  has  supported  monarchy  as  a  rule, 
simply  because,  as  a  rule,  there  was  nothing 
else  to  support. 

Where  the  reigning  family  has  in  any  partic- 
ular country  been  strongly  Catholic,  the  Church 
has  no  doubt  at  some  times  preferred  to  trust  to 
it  than  to  venture  the  experiment  of  republican- 
ism, particularly  where  the  republic  was  found- 
ed, like  the  first  one  in  France,  on  princi- 
ples opposed  to  religion  ;  and  it  is  quite  natural 
that  individual  Catholics  should  generally  have 
taken  the  same  view  of  the  case.  And,  un- 
doubtedly, the  Church  has  sometimes  suffered 
and  brought  itself  into  a  subjection  injurious  to 
its  own  freedom  by  putting  its  trust  too  much  in 
princes,  allowing  them,  in  return  for  their  pro- 
tection, too  much  interference  in  ecclesiastical 
affairs.  But  all  this  has  been  from  no  prefer- 
ence for  monarchy  in  itself. 

The  Church  undoubtedly  prefers  that  a  na- 
tion should  be  Catholic  rather  than  Protestant 
or  infidel ;  she  also  prefers  that  its  government 
should   be   Catholic ;    that    is,    that    it  should 


304    The  Church  opposed  to  Free  Institutions, 

Jegislate  in  accordance  with  the  principles  of 
Catholic  morality,  which,  rightly  understood, 
commend  themselves  to  the  common  sense  of 
mankind.  She  also  desires  that  the  Catholic 
religion  should  be  allowed  its  free  exercise. 
But  though  she  evidently  cannot  regard  it  as 
beneficial  that  error  should  also  be  allowed  free 
course,  experience  has  shown  that  invoking  the 
arm  of  the  State  to  repress  it,  except  where  it 
is  evidently  contrary  to  the  peace  and  the 
temporal  welfare  of  the  State  itself,  is  likely 
to  do  more  harm  than  good,  both  by  making 
religion  itself  odious,  and  also,  as  has  been 
said,  by  putting  religion  itself  in  a  subjection 
to  the  temporal  authority  in  return  for  the  pro- 
tection and  aid  afforded  by  the  latter. 
^  She  is,  therefore,  thoroughly  in  favor  of  a 
government  like  that  under  which  we  have  the 
.  :  good  fortune  to  live  ;  a  government  which  con- 
K  I  ^  V  fines  itself  to  its  own  proper  business  of  provid- 
ing for  those  things  which  concern  the  temporal 
welfare  of  its  citizens.  She  does  not  regard  it, 
of  course,  as  being  the  best  possible  govern- 
ment in  its  actual  legislation,  any  more  than 
she  regards  its  citizens,  the  authors  of  that 
legislation,  as  the  best  or  wisest  men  possible  ; 
she  cannot  but  see  that  it  makes  mistakes, 
and  labors  under  false  impressions,  particularly 
with  regard  to  herself,  her  own  aims  and  in- 
tentions.    She   also  knows  that  true  belief  in 


The  Church  opposed  to  Free  Institutions.    305 

matters  of  doctrine  has  a  more  intimate  con- 
nection with  right  principles  of  public  and 
private  life  than  is  generally  supposed  ;  and 
that,  for  want  of  thorough  Christian  knowledge 
and  instruction,  the  temporal  welfare  and 
happiness  of  the  people  is  not  so  effectually 
secured  as  it  might  be.  But  she  does  not  wish 
to  secure  for  the  American  people  the  advan- 
tages of  the  truth  which  she  possesses  by  force, 
trickery,  or  conspiracy  ;  but  only  by  the  legiti- 
mate means  which  American  citizenship  places 
in  the  hands  of  all.  She  regards  these  means 
and  this  citizenship  as  the  best  hope  which  any 
country  can  have  for  its  future. 

Catholics  desire  the  conversion  of  this  coun- 
try to  the  Catholic  faith ;  that  is  a  matter  of 
course.  So  Methodists,  Baptists,  or  Presby- 
terians must  necessarily  desire  its  conversion 
to  their  own  respective  ways  of  thinking.  No 
charge  should,  therefore,  be  made  against  us  on 
this  head.  But  should  v/e  be  successful  in  this, 
we  do  not  desire  to  tyrannize  over  those  who 
may  still  differ  from  us.  We  do  not  wish  to 
change  our  form  of  government,  or  to  establish 
the  Catholic  religion,  making  nonconformity 
with  it  an  offence.  But  no  one  could  rightly 
blame  a  Catholic  majority  for  making  laws  by 
which,  for  instance,  the  proper  respect  for  the 
Divine  institution  of  marriage  should  be  more 
fully  secured.     If  infidels   are  not  considered 


3o6    The  Church  opposed  to  Free  Institutions, 

disloyal  to  our  free  institutions  for  trying  to 
break  this  down,  how  can  Catholics  be  so  con- 
sidered for  endeavoring  to  build  it  up  ?  Or  if  a 
Catholic  majority  should  believe  that  some 
special  measures  needed  to  be  taken  for  sup- 
pressing the  evils  of  intemperance,  and  should 
vote  such  measures,  as  Catholics  would  do  now 
if  they  followed  the  direction  of  their  pastors, 
could  such  a  proceeding  be  considered  as 
bigoted,  intolerant,  or  contrary  to  the  principles 
of  American  liberty  ? 

I  know  what  many,  perhaps  most  non-Catho- 
lics, will  say  :  ' '  This  all  sounds  well  enough  ; 
but  organizations,  as  well  as  individuals,  must 
be  judged,  not  by  their  professions,  but  by 
their  actions.  History  shows  that  Catholics 
have  always  persecuted  those  opposed  to  them, 
and  persecuted  them  simply  as  such,  whenever 
it  was  in  their  power  to  do  so.  And  what  they 
have  done  we  believe  they  will  do  again." 

This  charge  is  a  very  common  and  a  very 
weighty  one  in  the  minds  of  most  Protestants. 
It  deserves  a  special  examination. 


CHAPTER  XXVI. 

PKRSKCUTION. 

PERSECUTION  is  considered  by  the  aver- 
age Protestant  as  something  specially 
characteristic  of  the  Catholic  Church.  He  con- 
siders it  so  obvious  that  the  Catholic  Church 
always  persecutes  heretics  when  she  gets  a 
chance,  that  it  is  hardly  worth  while  to  make 
any  attempt  to  prove  it.  But  if  proof  is  called 
for,  surely  ' '  Bloody  Mary  ' '  and  the  Spanish 
Inquisition  are  quite  sufficient  to  settle  the 
question. 

But  in  fact  the  question  is  one  which  cannot 
be  settled  in  any  such  summary  manner.  Be- 
fore w^e  can  arrive  at  any  sound  conclusions,  or 
even  think  or  talk  reasonably  on  the  subject, 
we  must  understand  just  what  is  meant  by  per- 
secution, and  how  far  or  in  what  cases  we  can 
reasonably  object  to  it. 

No  one,  I  presume,  objects  to  the  persecution 
of  burglars  or  murderers  except  those  who  are, 
or  are  likely  to  be,  the  objects  of  such  perse- 
cution. Society  has  well-formed  and  settled 
views,  not  only  as  to  the  immorality  of  burglary 
and  murder,  but  also  as  to  their  inconsistency 
with  the  peace  and  welfare  of  the  state.  As  a 
307 


308  Persecution, 


rule,  it  contents  itself  with  the  persecution  or 
punishment  of  the  overt  act,  and  it  accom- 
plishes its  end  sufficiently  well  by  so  doing ;  for 
burglars  or  assassins  are  not  inclined  to  make 
profession  openly  of  their  purposes,  or  to  incite 
others  publicly  to  imitate  their  example. 

But  even  in  this  may  we  not  have,  in  a  certain 
sense,  persecution  for  opinion's  sake  ?  Sup- 
pose that  a  man  holds  that,  according  to  his  re- 
ligion or  conscience,  the  sacrifice  of  human  life 
is  necessary.  That  such  doctrines  are  held  as 
religious  creeds  by  considerable  numbers  of 
men,  is  well  known.  Would  not  a  civilized 
government  acquiring  control  of  a  country 
where  such  views  were  held  be  obliged  to  put 
them  down  by  the  strong  hand — to  persecute 
and  severely  punish  those  who  should  act  out 
their  convictions  in  this  respect  ?  And  yet  the 
victim  of  such  persecution  might  truly  allege 
that,  according  to  his  creed,  the  taking  of  life  in 
the  case  in  which  he  was  punished  for  it  was  a 
matter  of  the  highest  obligation,  most  necessary 
not  only  for  his  own  salvation  but  for  that  also 
of  the  one  whose  life  he  had  taken. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  holding  such  doctrines 
is  a  mark  of  insanity,  and  that  insane  persons 
form  an  exception  to  ordinary  rules ;  for  one 
cannot  believe  whole  nations  to  be  insane. 

But  we  will  take  a  more  practical  case  ;  one 
nearer  home.     Surely  there  are  plenty  of  peo- 


Persecution,  309 

pie,  not  considered  insane,  who  hold  that  a  man, 
at  least  if  no  one  is  depending  on  him  for  sup- 
port, has  a  right  to  take  his  own  life.  It  is 
hard  to  prove  that  this  conviction  is  unreason- 
able, or  that  this  view  is  a  mistaken  one,  unless 
by  the  aid  of  religion  ;  and  if  the  would-be 
suicide  does  not  admit  the  teachings  of  your 
religion,  it  is  practically  impossible  to  persuade 
him  of  his  error,  which  may  amount  to  a  reli- 
gious conviction  with  him.  Nevertheless,  laws 
have  been  passed,  and  now  exist,  making  at- 
tempted suicide  a  punishable  offence ;  and  we 
do  not  find  that  such  laws  are  considered  to 
savor  of  intolerance  or  persecution.  And  yet 
clearly  by  them  we  punish  men  for  acting  out 
their  conscientious  convictions,  or  what  may 
be  presumed  to  be  such  ;  as  in  the  case  of  the 
Mormons. 

But  you  sa)^  ''  What  we  mean  by  persecution 
is  persecution,  not  for  action's  but  for  opinion's 
sake.  As  you  have  said,  the  civilized  state 
contents  itself  with   punishing  the  overt  act." 

Had  you  not  better  wait  a  minute,  and  see  if 
you  are  not  going  too  far  in  this  definition  of 
persecution  which  3^ou  have  given  ?  For  my 
part,  I  do  not  see  very  well  how  any  one  can  be 
persecuted  merely  for  an  opinion,  unless  we 
bring  a  mind-reader  as  witness  against  him. 
What  is  meant  by  the  loose  phrase  ' '  persecu- 
tion for  opinion's  sake,"  means  really  persecu- 


3IO  Persecution, 


tion  for  giving  utterance  to  an  opinion ;  for 
that  is  the  only  thing  which  testimony  is  com- 
petent to  prove.  An  opinion  which  remains 
locked  up  in  a  man's  breast,  unbetrayed  by 
word  or  sign,  never  was  persecuted,  because  it 
cannot  be.  It  is  only  the  manifestation  of 
opinion  which  can  be  punished  ;  though  this 
manifestation  may  be  negative,  as  we  may  say, 
or  simply  recusancy  ;  an  omission  of  certain 
acts  or  certain  formulas  which  would  be  cheer- 
fully performed  or  subscribed  by  those  holding 
the  opinions  legally  recognized  as  correct. 

But,  in  point  of  fact,  most  of  the  religious 
persecution  which  has  been  instituted,  at  least 
by  Catholic  states,  has  been  for  the  open  utter- 
ance of  heretical  opinions,  generally  accom- 
panied by  the  endeavor  to  persuade  others  also 
to  embrace  them.  Those  who  have  made  no 
attempt  to  propagate  their  opinions  have  gen- 
erally been  unmolested. 

Now,  are  we  prepared  to  say  that  free  utter- 
ance and  propagation  of  opinions  which  the 
people  in  general,  and  the  authorities  which  as 
a  rule  represent  their  views,  consider  as  dan- 
gerous to  the  general  welfare,  should  always  be 
allowed?  We  have,  I  know,  tried  to  maintain 
the  right  of  free  speech  and  a  free  press ;  still 
we  have  always  drawn  the  line  at  the  publica- 
tion of  evidently  indecent  and  immoral  litera- 
ture, and  should  undoubtedly  draw  it,  had  we 


Persecution.  311 


occasion,  at  the  public  giving  out  of  matter  of 
this  kind  by  word  of  mouth.  I  am  inclined  to 
think,  also,  that  it  is  only  because  infidelity  has 
lately  become  quite  common,  that  public  blas- 
phemy against  all  that  Christians  hold  sacred  is 
tolerated  among  us.  Even  now  it  is  not  in  all 
parts  of  the  country  ;  and  when  it  is  not,  this  is 
not  stigmatized  as  persecution. 

Furthermore,  we  are  lately  beginning  to  see 
that  some  stop  must  be  put  to  the  open  publi- 
cation of  opinions  which  are  essentially  sub- 
versive of  all  social  order  and  peace.  A  man 
may  hold  in  his  own  mind  the  idea  that  ''  prop- 
erty is  theft,"  that  the  private  ownership  of 
anything  is  an  outrage  on  humanity  ;  that  can- 
not be  helped  or  punished.  But  if  he  under- 
takes to  ventilate  this  doctrine  on  a  public  plat- 
form, especially  if  his  doing  so  is  equivalent  to 
a  positive  incitement  to  his  hearers  to  steal  or 
destroy  the  goods  of  others,  the  state  has  as 
much  right  to  interfere  with  his  action  as  if  he 
personally  undertook  such  stealing  or  destruc- 
tion. Or  a  man  may  entertain  the  opinion  that 
all  government  is  intolerable,  that  every  one 
must  be  free  to  do  exactly  what  he  pleases  ; 
that  we  cannot  interfere  with.  But  if  he  col- 
lects a  body  of  hearers  about  him,  and  en- 
deavors to  form  them  into  a  mob  for  resistance 
to  lawful  authority,  there  is  no  reason  why  his 
freedom  of  speech   should  not  be  as  much  re- 


312  Persecution, 


strained  as  his  freedom  of  action  would  be 
should  he  begin  to  act  on  his  own  part  in  de- 
fiance of  the  law  of  the  land. 

I  think,  then,  it  can  hardly  be  denied  that  it 
is  in  the  competency  of  the  state  to  prevent  and 
to  punish  the  open  expression  of  dangerous 
opinions.  If  that  is  conceded,  we  have  the 
whole  essential  idea  of  persecution  as  one  that 
cannot  be  condemned  as  unreasonable  or  cruel. 
Every  state  must  for  its  own  preservation 
sometimes  persecute,  not  for  the  mere  holding 
of  an  opinion,  but  for  its  open  expression. 

We  are  therefore  obliged  to  confess  that  if  we 
condemn  persecution  for  the  sake  of  religion — 
that  is  to  say,  the  punishment  of  the  open  ex- 
pression and  propagation  of  religious  opinions, 
it  must  be  either  because  such  opinions  cannot 
be  considered  as  dangerous  to  the  welfare  of 
society,  or  because  the  punishment  will  be  in- 
effectual, only  increasing  the  evil  it  is  intended 
to  remove,  or  because  it  is  of  an  excessive  or 
barbarous  character,  going  farther  than  is  nec- 
essary to  accomplish  the  result  which  is  re- 
quired. 

It  is  really  for  the  first  o.f  these  reasons  main- 
ly that  persecution  is  now  generally  held  to  be 
unjustifiable.  This,  then,  I  shall  principally 
examine,   as  follows : 

An  opinion  cannot,  of  course,  be  con- 
sidered dangerous   to  the   social   welfare   if   it 


Persecution,  313 


is  considered  by  the  community  in  general  as 
being  quite  probably  true,  or  if  it  is  one  which 
has  no  perceptible  connection  with  the  moral 
character  or  the  material  prosperity  of  man. 
On  the  first  of  these  grounds  ordinary  political 
theories  cannot  be  considered  fit  matters  for 
legal  repression;  on  the  second,  most  of  the 
speculations  which  might  be  put  forward  in  ab- 
stract physical  science,  however  absurd  they 
may  evidently  be,  must,  of  course,  be  indul- 
gently tolerated. 

It  is  on  both  these  grounds  that  the  persecu- 
tion of  religious  opinions  is  now  generally 
reprobated.  The  double  notion  is  now  gen- 
erally abroad,  first,  that  truth  in  matters  of 
religion,  even  perhaps  with  regard  to  the  very 
existence  of  God  Himself,  is  unattainable,  so 
that  any  view  which  a  man  holds  about  them 
is  merely  a  speculation ;  and,  secondly,  that 
religious  opinions,  properly  so  called,  have  no 
connection  with  morality  or  the  well-ordered 
life  of  the  social  body. 

On  these  premises,  of  course,  it  is  therefore 
perfectly  reasonable  that  persecution  should  be 
reprobated.  But  the  difficulty  is  that  the  pre- 
mises themselves  cannot  be  considered  as  well 
taken.  The  first  begs  the  question  as  to  the 
existence  of  certain  evidence  for  religious 
truth.  The  second  is  utterly  absurd,  as  has 
been    previously    shown.      A    single    instance 


5 14  Persecution, 


will  show  its  absurdity.  A  man  may  believe 
in  a  God  who  sanctions  and  commands  what 
the  common  sense  of  mankind  regards  as  a 
crime.  His  belief  is  a  religious  opinion ;  but 
it  is  one  like  in  every  respect  to  those  before 
instanced,  of  absolute  communism  and  anar- 
chy, to  which  the  state  cannot  be  indifferent. 
Now,  let  us  see  what  the  application  of  this 
is  to  the  persecutions  which  Catholic  states 
have  instituted.  The  circumstances,  as  a  rule, 
have  been  that  a  body  of  men,  or  individuals 
here  and  there,  have  openly  proclaimed  and  en- 
deavored to  propagate  opinions  which,  rightly 
or  wrongly,  were  held,  not  only  by  the  gov- 
ernment of  the  state,  but  also  by  the  great 
mass  of  the  people,  as  being  the  denial  of 
truths  most  necessary  to  the  holy  life  of  the 
individual,  and  by  means  of  that  to  the  sta- 
bility, peace,  and  prosperity  of  the  state. 
Catholics  know,  for  example,  perfectly  well 
that  if  the  people  of  a  Catholic  nation  were 
persuaded  of  the  truth  of  the  Protestant  doc- 
trine as  originally  enunciated,  to  the  effect  that 
no  sins  would  be  imputed  to  one  who  had  faith 
in  Christ,  the  door  would  be  at  once  opened  to 
vice  and  disorder  of  every  kind,  as  lyUther  and 
others  of  the  original  Reformers  sorrowfully 
confess  it  was.  ''  The  world,"  says  I^uther  in 
his  Table  Talk,  ''grows  worse  and  worse,  and 
becomes  more  wicked  every  day.     Men  are  now 


Persecution,  3 1 5 


more  given  to  revenge,  more  avaricious,  more 
devoid  of  mercy,  less  modest,  and  more  incor- 
rigible; in  fine,  more  wicked  than  in  the  Pa- 
pacy." And  in  another  place:  ''One  thing 
no  less  astonivShing  than  scandalous  is,  to  see 
that  since  the  pure  doctrine  of  the  gospel  has 
been  brought  to  light,  the  world  daily  goes 
from  bad  to  worse."  Bucer  confesses  that 
''the  greater  part  of  the  people  seem  to  have 
embraced  the  gospel  only  to  shake  off  the 
yoke  of  discipline,  and  the  obligation  of  fast- 
ing, penances,  etc.,  which  lay  upon  them  in  the 
time  of  popery,  and  to  live  at  their  pleasure, 
enjoying  their  lust  and  lawless  appetite  without 
control."  Calvin  says:  "The  pastors,  yes, 
the  pastors  themselves  who ,  mount  the  pulpit 
.  .  .  are  at  the  present  time  the  most 
shameful  examples  of  waywardness  and  other 
vices." 

I  do  not  mean  to  say  that  these  disorders 
everywhere  visibly  mark  out  Protestant  nations 
from  Catholic  ones ;  they  do  not,  and  for  two 
reasons.  First,  Catholics,  as  a  rule,  hardly  live 
up  to  their  faith,  or,  as  we  say,  do  not  fully 
practise  their  reltgt^Tfi ;  secondly,  common  sense, 
natural  virtue,  and  the  grace  of  God  as  well, 
have  done  much  to  correct  the  original  Protest- 
ant doctrine,  and  to  repair  the  wreck  which  it 
made.  But  the  principle  holds  good  that  a 
religious   doctrine    may    necessarily  and   obvi- 


3i6  Persecution, 


ously  lead  to  results  not  only  immoral,  but 
such  as  shake  the  whole  framework  of  society. 

In  some  cases  its  effect  may  be  immediate, 
being  directly  aimed  at  the  social  order  itself. 
Such,  for  instance,  is  one  of  the  propositions  of 
Wickliffe  to  the  effect  that  no  man  can  have 
legitimate  authority,  either  in  the  State  or  the 
Church,  while  he  is  in  the  state  of  mortal  sin. 
This,  of  course,  practically  exempts  every  one 
from  obedience  to  any  superior,  secular  or  reli- 
gious, whose  character  he  does  not  approve, 
and  destroys  the  whole  constitution  of  society 
at  one  blow.  And  yet  it  is  a  religious  proposi- 
tion ;  for  it  evidently  means  to  recognize  au- 
thority as  coming  from  God,  and  to  deny  it  to 
those  who  are  not  in  His  favor. 

Now,  can  any  one  say  that  a  Catholic  state, 
or  any  state  whatever  for  the  matter  of  that, 
can  calmly  tolerate  the  dissemination  of  propo- 
sitions of  this  kind  ?  If  it  cannot,  the  persecu- 
tions of  history  are  not  without  some  just  war- 
rant. 

To  all  this  it  must  be  added  that  it  was  not 
always  simply  the  expression  or  propagation  of 
opinion  which  has  provoked  persecution  from 
Catholic  states.  L^awless  acts  of  outrage  and 
insult  to  what  was  most  reverenced  by  the  mass 
of  the  people  were  sometimes  committed.  Even 
now  and  in  this  country  we  have  laws  prohibit- 
ing and  punishing  the  disturbance  of  religious 


Persecution,  317 


worship ;  why,  then,  should  our  ancestors  not 
punish  those  who  were  guilty  of  this  and  much 
more  ? 

We  picture  to  ourselves  those  cruel  Papists 
seizing  and  burning  at  the  stake  a  man  who 
was  simply  worshipping  God  in  peace  and  pri- 
vacy according  to  the  dictates  of  his  con- 
science ;  but  really  this  was  not  the  usual 
case. 

I  do  not  say  it  has  never  occurred ;  nor,  what 
comes  to  about  the  same  thing,  that  actual  con- 
formity has  not  been  required  to  a  religion  in 
which  one  did  not  believe.  But  if  these  things 
have  been  notably  exemplified  anywhere,  they 
were  in  the  Protestant  persecutions  under  Eliza- 
beth and  her  successors,  where  Catholics  were 
subjected  to  heavy  penalties  and  placed  under 
legal  disabilities  for  refusing  to  attend  a  wor- 
ship in  which  they  could  not  conscientiously 
join;  and  priests  were  hung,  drawn,  and  quar- 
tered for  saying  Mass  even  in  private  houses 
with  the  utmost  seclusion,  or  indeed  even  for 
being  priests.  It  was  pretended  that  this  was 
on  account  of  treason ;  that  the  fact  of  a  priest 
entering  England  from  foreign  parts  was  a  suffi- 
cient proof  of  treasonable  design  ;  but  the  hol- 
lo wness  of  the  pretence  was  often  shown  by  the 
offer  of  pardon  on  the  condition  of  apostasy. 

I  do  not  deny,  however,  that  there  was  in 
the  Protestant  English  persecutions,  long-con- 


3 1 8  Persecution. 


tinned  and  bloody  as  they  were,  a  genuine 
though  unfounded  scare  about  danger  to  the 
state  from  Catholics.  The  fact  really  is  that 
in  almost,  if  not  quite  all  the  persecutions  of 
history,  including  those  of  the  early  Christians 
under  pagan  Rome,  this  has  been  the  strong 
and  principal  motive.  The  Romans  were  will- 
ing enough  to  tolerate  any  religion  unless  they 
thought  it  threatened  the  peace  of  the  state  and 
the  authority  of  the  emperors ;  and  this  has 
been  the  cause  of  persecution  at  other  times  as 
well,  rather  than  simple  religious  rancor.  It  is 
Catholic  or  Protestant  states,  as  a  rule,  that 
have  persecuted,  rather  than  Catholic  or  Prot- 
estant churches.  The  Spanish  Inquisition,  the 
great  bugbear  of  Protestants  and  one  of  their 
great  arguments  against  Catholicity,  was  spe- 
cially a  work  of  the  state,  against  the  severity 
of  which  Rome  constantly  protested. 

That  there  may  be,  however,  a  fear,  more  or 
less  reasonable,  justifying  a  state  in  what  may 
be  properly  called  persecution  on  religious 
grounds,  seems  to  be  quite  undeniable  ;  and, 
of  course,  a  nation  holding  a  false  faith  is  justi- 
fied in  conscience  in  persecuting  as  much  as 
one  holding  a  true  faith,  if  it  believes  its  faith 
to  be  true. 

lyct  us  now  briefly  notice  the  second  and  third 
of  the  reavSons  against  persecution  first  given. 
As  to  the  second,  no  doubt  opinion  has  changed 


Persecution,  319 

much  in  recent  times  as  to  whether  it  is  expedient 
in  many  cases  in  which  it  is  obviously  justifi- 
able. This  is  just  the  puzzle  at  the  present  day 
with  regard  to  anarchistic  doctrines.  Persecu- 
tion to  some  extent  seems  absolutely  necessary  ; 
but  the  question  is,  Will  it  not  rather  fan  the 
flame  than  exting-uish  it  ? 

As  to  the  third,  we  probably  all  admit  that 
indignation  is  justly  excited  against  the  per- 
secutions of  former  times  on  account  of  what 
certainly  seems  to  us  their  neecSessly  cruel 
and  barbarous  character.  But  we  must  re- 
member that  they  did  not  seem  so  to  the 
people  of  those  times.  What  would  be  in 
our  judgment  most  cruel  and  atrocious  punish- 
ments were  constantly  used  then  for  all  grave 
crimes ;  and  false  belief  was  then  considered  by 
both  Catholics  and  Protestants  to  be  the  great- 
est and  most  dangerous  of  all  crimes.  But  the 
degree  or  severity  of  the  punishment  does  not 
really  enter  at  all  into  the  principle  of  the 
thing.  If  persecution  for  religion's  sake  is 
really  wrong  in  principle,  it  is  as  certainly 
wrong  to  fine  a  man  a  doHar  for  non-con- 
formity to  the  state  religion  as  to  burn  him  at 
the  stake. 

Now,  to  look  at  the  thing  in  a  practical  light, 
as  the  matter  is  to-day  in  this  country  and  in 
the  world  in  general.  Judging  from  any  indi- 
cations  which   we    have   at   the  present   time, 


320  Persecution, 


there  can  be  little  question  that  Catholics  are 
far  more  tolerant  toward  Protestants  than  Pro- 
testants are  toward  them.  That  is  notably  the 
case  right  here  among  us  ;  you  will  seldom  see 
any  signs  in  this  country  of  hatred  on  the  part 
of  Catholics  for  Protestants  ;  that  of  Protestants 
for  Catholics  is  manifested  continually.  We  do 
not  altogether  set  this  down  to  malice,  however. 
It  is  plain  that  it  is  for  the  most  part  caused  by 
the  dense  ignorance,  wilful,  it  is  true,  to  some 
extent,  but^still  ignorance  all  the  same,  which 
still  prevails  among  Protestants  regarding  the 
Catholic  faith.  And  on  the  basis  of  this  ignor- 
ance, the  hatred  becomes  more  or  less  excus- 
able. If  our  beliefs  and  practices  were  really 
what  most  Protestants  still  insist  on  believing 
them  to  be,  in  spite  of  the  most  earnest  and 
often  repeated  denials  on  our  part ;  if  even  a 
tenth  part  of  the  old  calumnies  which  they  are 
continually  handing  down  from  generation  to 
generation  against  us  were  true,  there  would 
really  be  ground  for  believing  us  to  be  danger- 
ous enemies  to  society  and  to  the  moral,  intel- 
lectual, and  material  progress  of  humanity. 

We  have  no  desire,  and  cannot  very  well 
have  any,  to  persecute  our  countrymen  ;  for  this 
reason,  even  were  there  no  others,  that  they  are 
not.  as  a  rule,  wilful  apostates  from  the  known 
truth,  but  rather  sufferers  from  a  darkness  and 
mental   confusion  coming  down  to  them  from 


The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage,         32  c 

centuries  of  ancestral  error ;  our  feeling  is 
rather  one  of  pity  than  of  anger.  When  Prot- 
estants awake  to  the  truth,  see  the  actual  state 
of  the  case,  and  understand  our  doctrines  and 
position  as  we  understand  theirs,  there  will 
be  for  us  as  little  danger  of  persecution  from 
them  as  there  is  now  for  them  from  us.  Our 
hope  and  prayer  is  that  that  time  may  soon 
come. 


CHAPTER  XXVII. 

THE    CATHOI.IC    I.AWS   OF    MARRIAGK. 

I  HAVE  spoken  in  the  last  chapter  but  one  of 
the  belief  of  the  Catholic  Church  on  the 
subject  of  marriage,  and  of  the  legislation  she 
would  desire  in  this  matter.  It  will  be  well  to 
explain  this  more  fully ;  for  many  misappre- 
hensions exist  regarding  it. 

Those  who  are  not  Christians  may  naturally 
consider  themselves  free  to  speculate,  and  to 
legislate  as  far  as  possible  on  this  matter,  with- 
out admitting  any  end  to  be  secured  by  it  ex- 
cept merely  natural  well-being,  or  any  guide  or 
light  regarding  it  except  that  which  is  fur- 
nished by  human  reason.  But  Christians,  at 
least  those  who  believe,  as  the  vast  majority  of 
Christians  do,  in  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  who 
recognize  the  words  of  Christ  and  His  apostles 


322  The  Catholic  Lazvs  of  Marriage. 

as  there  recorded  as  being  really  the  Word  of 
God,  cannot  stand  on  this  ground.  They  must 
and  do  believe  marriage  to  be  a  Divine  institu- 
tion, which  man  is  not  at  liberty  to  tamper  with 
according  to  his  own  will  or  fancy.  And  as  the 
legislation  of  nations  having  a  considerable 
Christian  population  may  at  the  present  day 
easily  fall  into  the  hands  of  unbelievers,  there 
is  evidently  a  probability  here  of  such  legisla- 
tion being  contrary  to  the  Christian  conscience, 
and  therefore  such  that  it  cannot  be  recognized 
or  obeyed  by  Christians.  No  Christian,  indeed 
no  sincere  believer  in  any  religion,  nay,  more, 
no  genuinely  conscientious  man,  can  always 
recognize  human  legislation  as  supreme  or  be- 
yond appeal. 

And  there  is  no  matter  on  which  a  conflict 
between  any  Church  and  the  State  is  more  like- 
ly now  to  occur  than  on  this.  The  State  of  to- 
day recognizes  marriage  simply  as  a  contract, 
subject  to  secular  legislation  as  completely  as 
any  other  contract ;  ChrivStians,  whether  Catho- 
lic or  Protestant,  on  the  other  hand,  regard  it 
as  a  Divine  institution  subject  to  laws  with 
which  the  State  cannot  interfere. 

In  principle  or  theory  there  is  no  difference 
between  the  attitude  which  a  Catholic  or  that 
which  any  other  religious  or  conscientious  man 
may  have  to  assume  in  some  cases  toward  the 
law  of  the  State  on  this  subject.     And  in   no 


The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage,         323 

case  does  such  attitude  warrant  a  charge  of 
opposition  or  enmity  to  free  institutions,  or  to 
the  nation  to  which  we  belong ;  certainly  it 
does  so  no  more  than  did  the  conscientious  ob- 
jection which  many  Northerners  had  before 
the  war  to  the  returning  of  fugitive  slaves, 
which  was  required  by  national  legislation. 
Such  oppositions  of  conscience  to  law  must 
occur  occasionally,  unless  we  abandon  con- 
science itself  and  substitute  for  it  a  principle 
of  blind  obedience  to  a  sovereign  or  to  a  ma- 
jority ;  but  conscience  is  really  the  strongest 
sanction  to  law  that  can  exist ;  so  that  nothing, 
even  on  the  mere  ground  of  expediency,  would 
be  gained,  but  much  would  be  lost  by  the 
change.  The  most  conscientious  man  is  radi- 
cally the  best  and  most  loyal  citizen  ;  and  he  is 
also  effectively  so — that  is,  he  supports  actually 
existing  laws,  on  the  whole,  better  than  any 
other  man,  since  the  occasions  on  which  he 
cannot  support  them  are  few  and  far  between. 

Indeed,  even  on  this  matter,  in  which  there 
is  such  a  great  divergence  of  theoretical  view, 
the  actual  practical  difficulty  arising  from  the  op- 
position of  Church  and  State  laws  is  compara- 
tively small.  To  see  this,  let  us  consider  the 
actual  laws  of  the  Church  regarding  marriage ; 
it  will  also  be  worth  while  for  its  own  sake. 

In  the  first  .place,  these  laws,  properly  so- 
called,    do    not   affect  the    unbaptized.      The 


324         The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage, 

Church  makes  laws  for  none  but  those  who  are, 
by  right  at  least,  her  members.  She  does  in- 
deed recognize  Divine  laws  applicable  to  all 
men  in  the  matter  of  marriage,  as  in  other  mat- 
ters ;  she  regards,  for  instance,  a  decree  of  di- 
vorce as  not  only  illicit,  but  as  null  and  void  ; 
and  she  believes  that  no  man  can  validly  marry 
his  sister,  or  have  more  than  one  wife  at  the 
same  time.  The  principal  practical  application 
of  her  belief  on  these  matters  is,  that  a  Catholic 
cannot  conscientiously  marry  a  divorced  man  or 
woman.  But  if  the  Catholic  in  question  be- 
lieves the  teaching  of  the  Church  on  this  point, 
he  does  not  complain ;  and  surely  no  one  else 
has  a  right  to.  Neither  could  there  be  much 
complaint  if  Catholics  should  be  able  to  bring 
about  a  great  modification  or  even  a  complete 
destruction  of  the  civil  laws  regarding  divorce  ; 
Christians  generally  would  approve,  and  un- 
believers would  have  no  more  right  to  object  to 
this  than  to  any  other  action  endorsed  by  the 
majority. 

It  is  not,  then,  on  these  matters  that  trouble 
would  be  likely  to  arise.  It  is  rather  on  the 
special  laws  which  the  Church  does  make  for 
those  belonging  to  her  fold,  which  laws,  of 
course,  a  non-Catholic  state  will  not,  as  a  rule, 
recognize. 

These  laws  are  principally  to  the  effect  of 
prohibiting  or  invalidating  marriage  under  cer- 


The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage,         325 

tain  conditions  ;  and  they  are  quite  numerous. 
With  regard  to  relationship,  for  instance,  mar- 
riage is  not  admitted  as  valid  between  Catho- 
lics even  so  remotely  related  as  third  cousins ; 
nor  is  the  marriage  of  a  Catholic  with  an  un- 
baptized  person  recognized.  It  is  not  con- 
sidered as  possible  to  marry  after  receiving  holy 
orders  ;  of  this  I  have  already  spoken.  Nor 
can  one  having  the  solemn  vows  of  a  religious 
order  validly  marry.  Perhaps  the  most  prac- 
tically important  of  all  these  provisions,  as  far 
as  the  State  is  concerned,  is  one  not  existing 
generally  in  this  country,  but  prevailing  over  a 
great  part  of  Europe,  invalidati*lig  the  marriage 
of  Catholics  unless  celebrated  in  the  presence 
of  the  parish  priest  and  two  witnesses.  There 
are  other  laws  than  these  making  marriage  in- 
valid ;  others  wdiich  simply  prohibit  without 
invalidating ;  but  those  which  I  have  men- 
tioned will  suffice.  The  legislation  of  the 
Church  on  this  point  of  impediments  to  mar- 
riage, as  they  are  called,  is  quite  complicated ; 
it  is  as  impossible  to  explain  it  in  a  few  words 
as  it  would  be  to  put  all  the  civil  laws  regarding 
contracts  in  a  nutshell.  That  Catholics  in- 
tending to  marry  should  make  no  mistake 
nullifying  their  marriage  in  the  sight  of  the 
Church,  it  is  as  necessary  for  them  to  consult  a 
priest  as  it  would  be  to  consult  a  lawyer  before 
drawing  up  a  complicated  legal  document ;  and 


326         The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage, 


I  may  say  that  it  is  mainly  on  this  account  that 
the  law  above  mentioned  has  been  made,  mak- 
ing it  absolutely  necessary  for  them  to  get  mar- 
ried in  the  presence  of  the  priest,  in  order  that 
he  may  know  their  case  and  be  able  to  advise 
and  warn  them  properly.  And  though  this 
provision  is  not,  as  has  been  said,  generally  in 
force  in  this  country,  this  cogent  reason  for  it 
exists  here  as  elsewhere. 

The  Church,  then,  will  often  refuse  to  recog- 
nize as  really  married  those  w4iom  the  state 
regards  as  being  so.  As  she  will  not  accept  as 
valid  the  remarriage  to  other  parties  of  those 
who  have  obtained  a  civil  divorce,  so  also  she 
will  not,  where  her  law  requiring  the  presence 
of  the  priest  is  in  force,  consider  a  merely  civil 
marriage  as  being  a  marriage  at  all ;  nor  will 
she  consider  those  as  truly  married  between 
whom  an  invalidating  impediment  exists  ac- 
cording to  her  law,  though  the  parties  them- 
selves, as  well  as  the  State,  are  quite  ignorant 
of  its  existence.  Also,  vice  versa,  she  must 
necessarily  sometimes  consider  those  as  really 
married  whom  the  State  will  not  accept  as 
such  ;  for  instance,  in  countries  where  it  is  nee- 
evSsary  by  civil  law  that  all  must  be  married  by 
the  civil  magistrate,  the  Church  will  regard  as 
married  all  Catholics  who  have  complied  with 
her  own  rules,  whether  they  have  with  those  of 
the  State  or  not. 


The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage,         327 

,  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  it  is 
only  concerning  the  baptized,  who  alone  come 
under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Church,  that  she 
makes  or  can  make  special  laws  or  regulations. 
And  it  must  also  be  well  understood  that  the 
laws  which  are  made  by  the  Church  admit  of 
dispensation  in  particular  cases.  Of  this  mat- 
ter of  dispensation  I  have  already  spoken  ;  still 
it  will  be  well  to  bring  it  up  again,  on  account 
of  its  importance  in  the  present  connection. 
lyCt  it  not,  then,  be  supposed  that  the  Church 
meddles  with,  attempts  to  change,  or  makes 
exception  to  the  laws  of  God  in  this  or  any 
other  matter ;  that  she  undertakes  by  any  act 
of  her  own  to  make  right  what  is  wrong  ac- 
cording to  the  Divine  I^aw.  In  other  words, 
she  does  not,  as  has  been  clearly  stated  before, 
give  permission  to  commit  sin,  on  any  terms 
whatever.  But  it  is  an  entirely  different  thing 
to  make  a  rule  which  it  is  advisable  should  be 
observed  on  the  whole,  and  to  make  exceptions 
to  this  rule  in  particular  cases.  This  is  no 
more  giving  permission  to  commit  sin  than  it 
would  be  for  the  father  of  a  family  to  require  all 
to  be  in  the  house*  by  ten  o'clock  at  night,  and 
then  to  allow  some  one  to  stay  out  later  for 
special  reasons. 

There  are,  then,  in  these  rules  of  the  Church 
regarding  marriage,  some  of  greater  import- 
ance, some  of  less.     It  has  been  said  that  third 


328  The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage, 

cousins  cannot  validly  marry,  for  instance  ;  this, 
of  course,  is  not  held  to  be  part  of  the  divine 
law;  no,  it  is  a  rule  made  by  the  Church  for 
her  own  subjects.  It  might  be  changed  to- 
morrow, and  the  limit  placed  at  second  cousins, 
instead  of  third ;  but  it  is  considered  best,  on  the 
whole,  to  keep  it  for  the  present  as  it  is,  in 
order  to  discourage  the  marriage  of  those  who 
are  blood  relations.  But  in  any  particular  case, 
where  any  reason  can  be  presented,  the  im- 
portance of  such  a  remote  relationship  is  so 
slight  that    the   law   will    readily   be    relaxed. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  celibacy  of  the  clergy 
is  regarded  as  such  an  important  matter  that 
the  law  prohibiting  those  in  holy  orders  to 
marry,  and  invalidating  any  marriage  which 
they  may  attempt,  is  not  dispensed  for  any  pri- 
vate reasons,  however  grave  or  urgent  they 
may  seem.  Indeed,  it  is  obvious  that  were  it 
otherwise  the  law  would  be  in  grave  danger  of 
being  broken  down. 

Still,  it  would  be  a  very  different  matter  to 
give  permission  for  this,  from  what  it  would  be 
to  allow  a  man  to  have  two  wives  at  once  ;  for 
in  this  latter  case  we  have  a  clear  and  certain 
Divine  lyaw  standing  in  the  way.  And  the 
Church  will  never  consent  to  allow  the  Divine 
Law  to  be  broken.  She  was  willing  to  lose 
England  rather  than  sanction  such  an  act ; 
Catherine   of   Aragou   being   truly   and    indis- 


The  Catholic  Lazvs  of  Marriage,         329 

solubly  married  to  Henry  VIII.,  it  was  simply 
and  utterly  impossible  to  give  consent  to  his 
marriage  with  another  while  she  was  still  alive  ; 
just  as  impossible  as  it  would  have  been  to 
allow  him  to  murder  her  in  order  to  remove  the 
difficulty.  If  the  Pope  had  been  willing  to  act 
as  Luther  acted  in  his  similar  case,  the  Refor- 
mation would  probably  have  been  effectually 
checked  in  England  by  the  royal  power;  but  the 
Pope,  acting  in  accordance  with  Catholic  princi- 
ples, could  not  give  permission  for  sin,  or  do  evil 
that  good  might  come,  even  though  that  good 
were  the  saving  of  a  whole  nation  to  the  faith. 
Some  cases,  then,  there  may  arise  of  serious 
and  irremediable  consequences  coming  from  the 
inflexibility  of  the  Church  regarding  the  divine 
law ;  but  though  trouble  may  no  doubt  arise 
from  the  difference  of  her  legislation  from  that 
of  the  State,  this  trouble  would  practically  be 
entirely  avoided  if  Catholics  would  take  care 
always  to  consult  the  Church  in  this  important 
matter.  The  trouble  comes  from  their  break- 
ing the  laws  of  the  Church  through  ignorance 
or  contempt ;  not  from  their  breaking  the  laws 
of  the  State,  or  still  less  from  any  encourage- 
ment given  them  by  the  Church  to  do  so.  The 
State  permits  marriages  which  the  Church  will 
not  recognize  ;  but  it  does  not  require  anything 
which  the  Church  will  not  permit,  nor  is  it  at 
all  likely  that  it  will  forbid  anything  which  tlie 


330         The  Catholic  Laws  of  Marriage, 

Church  requires.  Where,  for  instance,  a  law 
requiring  civil  marriage  is  in  force,  the  Church 
allows  the  form  to  be  gone  through  with,  mere- 
ly instructing  her  members  to  regard  this  form 
as  a  mere  contract  of  betrothal,  to  be  ratified  by 
the  subsequent  marriage  in  the  Church  ;  the 
State  makes  no  objection  to  this  subsequent 
marriage,  regarding  it  simply  as  a  religious 
ceremony,  no  more  to  be  prohibited  than  the 
reception  of  Holy  Communion  on  the  occasion 
would  be. 

If  Catholics,  then,  would  be  obedient  to  the 
Church,  the  State  would  have  no  complications 
to  fear ;  and  it  has  no  reasonable  grounds  of 
complaint  against  the  Church,  which  is  always 
ready  to  reinforce  any  prudent  provisions 
which  the  civil  law  may  make  on  this  or  any 
other  subject.  If  the  State,  for  instance,  does 
not  recognize  marriages  as  valid  between 
minors,  the  Church  will,  for  obvious  reasons  of 
prudence,  see,  so  far  as  possible,  that  Catholics 
do  not  contract  such  marriages  ;  or  if  a  civil 
license  is  required,  the  Church  will  see  that  it 
is  obtained.  The  very  watchfulness  of  the 
Church  in  this  matter,  which  requires  a  careful 
inquiry  into  the  circumstances  of  a  marriage 
before  allowing  it  to  be  contracted,  though 
mainly  intended  to  secure  the  observance  of  her 
own  laws,  is  of  great  assistance  to  the  carrying 
out  of  those  of  the  State  as  well. 


Use  of  the  Latin  Language,  3  3  i 

As  a  special  instance  of  this  may  be  men- 
tioned the  law  of  the  Church  requiring  the 
publication  of  the  banns,  as  they  are  called, 
before  marriage.  This  proceeding,  as  of  course 
it  is  no  part  of  the  Divine  Law,  may  be,  and 
often  is  dispensed,  if  reason  seems  to  exist  for 
doing  so  ;  but  it  is  insisted  on  more  and  more 
at  present,  and  undoubtedly  will  be  unless 
some  more  effectual  way  of  accomplishing  the 
same  result  shall  be  substituted  for  it. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII. 

USK    OF   the:    I,ATIN    IvANGUAGK. 

MANY  object  to  us  that  the  services  of  the 
Church  are  conducted,  as  a  rule,  in  a 
language  not  understood  by  the  people.  As 
they  have  a  deeply  rooted  idea  that  it  is  an 
essential  part  of  our  plan  to  keep  the  people  in 
ignorance,  this  seems  to  them  to  give  their  idea 
strong  confirmation.  Some — and  even  well 
educated  persons — imagine,  astonishing  as  it 
appears  to  us,  that  we  preach  in  Latin  !  We 
feel  flattered,  of  course,  by  such  a  compliment 
to  our  classical  scholarship,  though  we  feel  it  to 
be  quite  undeserved,  for  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
the  number  of  priests,  in  this  country  at  least, 
capable  of  such  an  achievement,  would  be  quite 


332  Use  of  the  Latin  Language, 

inadequate  to  furnish  the  multitude  of  sermons 
given  in  our  churches. 

But  the  notion  is  an  admirable  instance  of 
the  force  of  the  long-established  prejudice 
under  which  our  Protestant  brethren  labor. 
One  would  think  they  would  ask  themselves, 
why  we  should  preach  in  Latin  ;  what  would  be 
our  deep-laid  scheme  in  doing  so  ?  It  is  hard 
to  conceive  of  any,  except  to  impress  the  people 
with  our  learning ;  and  surely  this  could 
be  more  easily  accomplished  in  some  other 
way. 

It  ought  to  be  hardly  necessary,  then,  to  say 
that  we  do  7iot  preach  in  Latin,  unless  on  oc- 
casions, as  for  instance  at  great  councils  of  the 
Church,  when  that  language  will  on  the  whole 
be  better  understood  than  any  other.  It  is  for 
this  reason,  that  of  better  understanding  by  the 
mass  of  those  addressed,  that  our  theological 
books  for  the  use  of  the  clergy  are  written,  as  a 
rule,  in  Latin;  because  they  are  written  not 
for  the  clergy  of  one  nation,  but  for  all  nations ; 
and  all  the  clergy  are  supposed  to  have  enough 
learning  to  understand  a  book  in  Latin,  though 
not  perhaps  to  preach  in  that  language ;  where- 
as it  would  be  unreasonable  to  expect  every 
one  to  understand  English  or  German,  to  say 
nothing  of  the  objection  other  nations  might 
have  to  see  one  so  preferred.  Indeed,  the  same 
plan  was  followed  till  quite  lately  in  scientific 


Use  of  the  Latin  Language,  333 


books,  intended  to  be  read  by  scientific  men 
throughout  the  world. 

But,  to  return  to  the  original  question,  Why 
is  Latin  used  in  the  Church  services  ?  Does 
not  this  prevent  the  people  from  following  the 
service  intelligently,  and  indeed  from  knowing 
what  is  going  on  ? 

Not  at  all.  For  those  who  are  able  to  read 
can  easily  find  just  the  precise  meaning  of  the 
words  the  priest  is  saying,  by  means  of  the 
translations  put  in  the  common  prayer-books  ; 
and  those  who  cannot  read  can  have  these 
translations  read  to  them.  What  a  pity  it  is 
that  you  cannot  get  rid  of  this  curious  notion 
that  we  have  secrets  which  we  want  to  keep 
back  from  the  people  !  You  have  only  to  get  a 
prayer-book  at  the  nearest  Catholic  book-store, 
or  borrow  one,  and  you  will  find  the  services  of 
the  Church  given  as  far  as  possible  ;  though  of 
course  there  are  smaller  books,  which  many  pre- 
fer, in  which  there  are  other  devotions  instead. 

I  say  that  in  the  prayer-books  the  services  of 
the  Church  are  given  as  far  as  possible  ;  but  it 
is  really  not  possible,  owing  to  the  shiftings 
which  have  to  be  made  to  adjust  the  fixed  and 
the  movable  calendar,  to  give  all  the  details  of 
those  prayers  which  are  changed  from  day  to 
day.  Still,  missals  for  the  laity  are  published, 
w^hich  enable  this  to  be  done  to  a  considerable 
extent,  and  those  who  wish  can  use  them.     It 


334  Use  of  the  Latin  Language, 

is  found,  however,  that  most  people  prefer  to 
use  other  prayers  appropriate  to  the  time,  and 
not  to  be  obliged  to  follow  exactly  on  the  lines 
and  rules  which  the  priest  has  to  observe.  But 
there  are  plenty  of  occasions  on  which  the  ser- 
vice, being  of  a  somewhat  simpler  character, 
can  be,  and  is  intended  to  be,  followed  word  by 
word ;  so  that  those  who  specially  enjoy  this 
form  of  worship  have  an  ample  opportunity  to 
gratify  their  taste. 

One  special  reason  why  it  is  unadvisable  that 
the  prayers  of  the  more  important  part  of  the 
Mass  should  be  said  aloud  like  those  used  on 
the  occasions  of  which  I  have  just  spoken,  and 
the  prayers  in  Protestant  churches  generally, 
and  especially  why  it  would  not  be  well  to  say 
them  in  the  vernacular  or  common  language  of 
the  people  is,  that  the  Mass,  as  it  must  be  re- 
membered, is  our  Communion  service.  Now,  in 
Protestant  churches  only  a  certain  select  num- 
ber of  the  whole  congregation  are  present  at 
this  service  ;  and  all  of  them  are  presumed  to 
be  in  specially  reverent  and  attentive  dispo- 
sitions, prepared  to  understand  the  service,  and 
to  join  in  it  piously.  But  it  is  quite  otherwise 
with  the  Catholic  Mass.  All  Catholics  are  not 
only  requested,  but  required  to  be  present  at  it 
on  Sundays  and  holydays  of  obligation  ;  and 
non-Catholics  may  also  well  be  there,  many  of 
whom  may  know  nothing,  or  next  to  nothing, 


Use  of  the  Latin  Language,  335 


about  our  religion  or  about  the  Christian  reli- 
gion in  any  form.  It  would,  therefore,  evidently 
be  imprudent  to  recite  aloud  in  the  vernacular 
tongue  the  solemn  and  sacred  words  used  by 
the  priest  on  this  occasion,  and  especially  those 
relating  to  the  consecration  of  the  bread  and 
wine ;  and  indeed  no  reason  can  possibly  be 
given  why  they  should  be  so  recited,  as  all 
those  who  are  rightly  interested  in  them  can 
find  them  in  their  prayer-books  ;  for  the  words 
of  this  more  important  part,  the  **  canon  of  the 
Mass,"  as  they  are  called,  are  precisely  the 
same  every  day. 

It  seems,  then,  plain  enough,  for  this  reason 
as  well  as  for  the  one  previously  given  or  im- 
plied, that  of  not  forcing  every  one  into  precise- 
ly the  same  form  of  worship,  that  the  services 
of  the  Church  cannot  well  be  all  given  in  a 
loud  voice  and  in  the  vernacular.  It  is  evi- 
dently better  to  recite  a  considerable  part  of 
them  quietly ;  for  these,  all  that  is  necessary 
is  that  people  should  not  be  in  ignorance  of 
what  is  said  ;  and  of  this,  as  has  been  seen, 
there  is  no  danger.  And,  as  long  as  a  trans- 
lation is  provided,  the  language  in  which  they 
are  said  is  immaterial. 

Still,  it  may  be  urged  that  those  parts  which 
are  said  aloud,  or  sung  at  High  Mass,  ought  to 
be  in  the  common  language  of  the  people. 
And  it  cannot   be  denied  that  these  would  be 


336  Use  of  the  Latin  Language, 

edifying  and  interesting  to  many  of  those  pres- 
ent if  these  parts  were  given  in  a  language 
which  they  understood ;  particularly  those 
which  are  not  the  same  every  day,  but  have 
reference  to  the  special  feast  which  is  being 
celebrated  ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  others  might 
object  to  being  distracted  from  their  own  de- 
votions. 

An  advantage  is  gained,  however,  by  having 
even  these  in  Latin,  which  has  not  yet  been 
mentioned.  It  is  this  :  that,  in  the  present 
arrangement,  the  service  is  the  same  in  one 
country  and  another,  so  that  Catholic  travellers 
or  emigrants  find  themselves  at  once  at  home  in 
any  Catholic  Church  wherever  they  may  go  ; 
and  they  feel  at  one  with  all  other  Catholics  in 
every  place.  Whereas,  if  it  were  otherwise,  a 
Catholic  German  would  feel  like  a  stranger  in 
his  own  church  in  France  ;  and  the  wall  of 
separation  which  difference  of  language  builds 
up  between  people  of  various  nations  coming  to 
settle  in  a  country  like  our  own  would  be 
strengthened,  instead  of  broken  down  as  it 
should  be.  As  this  country  wishes  to  have  all 
foreigners  coming  here  to  live  to  be  at  home  in 
it,  and  to  become  Americans,  so  the  Church 
wishes  all  her  members  in  matters  of  religion 
to  be  Catholics,  not  Frenchmen,  Germans,  or 
Italians.  lyCt  them  be  Germans  or  Frenchmen 
at  home,  and  Americans  when  they  come  here 


Use  of  the  Latin  Language,  337 

in  all  political  and  national  matters ;  but  in 
those  wliicli  concern  religion  let  there  be 
unity,  so  far  as  it  can  be  maintained.  And  the 
one  language  of  religion  helps  to  secure  this, 
especially  as  it  is  a  language  not  belonging  to 
any  now  existing  nation.  No  other  language 
besides  the  lyatin  could  have  these  advantages, 
at  least  in  Europe  and  here ;  for  the  languages 
of  Europe  are  to  a  great  extent  founded  on  it ; 
it  is  a  sort  of  common  ground,  on  which  they 
all  meet. 

It  must  not,  however,  be  imagined  that  Latin 
is  considered  essential  by  the  Catholic  Church. 
Other  languages  are  used  in  the  church  service 
by  various  peoples  which  are  in  union  with  us. 
The  principal  reason  why,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
Catholic  nations  of  Europe  have  their  Mass  and 
other  principal  acts  of  worship  in  Latin,  is  that 
they  were  converted  to  the  faith  by  missionaries 
sent  by  the  Roman  Church  at  the  time  of  the 
Roman  Empire,  when  Latin  was  the  language 
generally  used  in  the  western  part  of  that  em- 
pire, where  the  converted  nations  mostly  lay. 
But  if  the  Greek  or  the  Russian  Church  were 
united  with  us,  as  we  hope  they  may  be  at 
some  time  not  far  distant,  they  would  in  all 
probability  desire  and  be  willingly  allowed,  and 
perhaps  even  required,  to  keep  their  ancient 
liturgies  unchanged. 

I  hope  enough  has  been  said  to  persuade  you 


33^       Ceremonies  and  Rites  of  the  Church, 

that  we  do  not  pray  in  lyatin  in  order  to  mystify 
our  people ;  for  that,  after  all,  is  the  real  point 
of  importance.  Depend  on  it,  my  dear  friends, 
you  are  the  only  ones  who  are  mystified ;  and 
you  only  are  so  because  you  will  not  come  close 
up  to  us,  and  examine  to  see  just  what  we  are 
like  ;  you  stand  off  and  see  us  dimly  and  con- 
fusedly through  the  dust  and  mist  that  three 
centuries  of  prejudice  and  misunderstanding 
have  raised  to  blind  your  eyes. 


CHAPTER  XXIX. 

CKRKMONIKS   AND   RITKS   OF   THK   CHURCH. 

ONE  objection  to  the  Catholic  Church,  which 
has  great  practical  weight  in  the  minds  of 
many  and  perhaps  of  most  people  who  have 
been  brought  up  in  Protestantism,  is  that  she 
has  too  many  rites  and  ceremonies.  Our  wor- 
ship seems  to  them  to  consist  principally  in 
dressing  up  in  different  kinds  of  vestments, 
moving  to  and  fro,  bowing  and  genuflecting, 
ringing  bells  and  burning  incense  ;  the  whole 
being  accompanied  with  various  sorts  of  musical 
performances.  They  fail  to  see  in  this  any 
kind  of  prayer  or  praise  ;  it  seems  to  them  to  be 
a  spectacle  intended  to  amuse  or  interest  the 
audience,  rather  than  the  offering  of  an  homage 
to  the  Divine  Majesty. 


Ceremonies  and  Rites  of  the  Church,        339 

These  ideas  are  perhaps  more  common  in 
America  than  in  any  other  part  of  the  Christian 
world  ;  and  come,  no  doubt,  to  a  great  extent 
from  the  Puritan  ancestry  from  which  so  many 
of  us  are  descended.  And  yet  it  seems  strange 
that  a  people  like  these  ancestors  of  ours,  whose 
religion  was  based  so  largely  on  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, should  have  failed  to  recognize  in  its 
pages  the  Divine  approval  of  ceremonial  in  wor- 
ship, not  merely  intimated  in  a  general  way 
but  carried  out  in  the  Mosaic  law  with  great 
detail.  The  rites  of  the  Catholic  Church  are 
surely  not  more  magnificent  than  those  of  Solo- 
mon's temple. 

'*  Well,"  it  may  be  said,  ''  that  is  true.  But 
we  know  that  the  Old  Law  was  abrogated  at 
the  coming  of  Christ.  He  told  us  that  God  is 
a  Spirit ;  and  that  they  who  worship  Him  must 
worship  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  Certainly,  we 
all  admit  that.  But  did  not  Solomon  himself, 
when  he  built  the  temple,  and  until  his  heart 
was  turned  to  strange  gods,  worship  the  one 
God  in  spirit  and  in  truth  ?  Why  cannot  God 
be  worshipped  outwardly  as  well  as  inwardly  ? 
What  did  our  lyord  Himself  say,  when  He  con- 
demned the  Pharisees  for  tithing  mint  and  rue 
and  every  herb,  and  passing  over  judgment 
and  the  love  of  God?  He  said  (I^uke  xi.  42): 
"Now  these  things  you  ought  to  have  done, 
and  not  to  leave  those  undone." 


340       Ceremonies  and  Rites  of  the  Church, 


But  it  may  still  be  asked  :  ' '  Do  not  you 
Catholics  make  too  much  of  these  outward  rites 
and  forms,  just  as  the  Jews  did  of  old ;  do  you 
not  consider  them  of  more  importance  than  the 
ten  commandments,  or  at  least  act  as  if  you  so 
considered  them  ?  "  To  this  I  would  answer, 
that  a  Catholic  must  be  indeed  poorly  ac- 
quainted with  his  religion  who  could  entertain 
such  an  idea  for  a  moment.  Such  an  one  there 
may  be ;  such,  however,  I  do  not  remember 
ever  to  have  met.  And  as  to  the  mind  of  the 
Church,  and  the  teaching  of  her  doctors  and 
theologians,  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever. 
It  is  allowed  on  all  hands  that  the  rubrics,  as 
we  call  the  rules  of  the  Church  concerning  rites 
and  ceremonies,  are  in  many  cases  not  binding 
under  sin  at  all ;  or,  in  other  words,  that  many 
of  them  really  do  not  have  the  force  of  law;  that 
they  are,  as  we  say,  "directive,"  not  ''pre- 
ceptive." In  others,  however,  they  are  un- 
doubtedly of  obligation,  especially  where  they 
concern  the  holy  Sacrifice  of  the  Mass.  But 
even  here  they  are  acknowledged  to  be  of  less 
weight  than  the  obligations  of  the  natural  or  of 
the  Divine  I^aw.  Even  the  strict  fulfilment  of 
the  conditions  laid  down  by  Christ  for  the 
Sacraments  themselves  may  sometimes  be  jeo- 
pardized for  the  sake  of  man,  for  whom  the 
Sacraments  were  established.  In  case,  for  ex- 
ample, of  danger  in  delay,  w^e  not  only  dispense 


Ceremonies  and  Rites  of  the  Church.      34 1 

with  the  solemnities  which  the  Church  has  ap- 
pointed to  accompany  baptism,  but  we  even 
baptize  with  water  which  is  certainly  unfit  and 
perhaps  even  inadequate  to  the  purpose,  repeat- 
ing the  ceremony  afterward  if  there  be  time. 
Catholics  realize  fully  the  words  of  Christ 
(Mark  ii.  27)  :  "  The  Sabbath  was  made  for 
man,  and  not  man  for  the  Sabbath." 

The  idea  that  we  are  such  sticklers  for  cere- 
monies is  absurd  to  one  who  really  knows  us  ; 
the  danger  of  our  neglecting  them  is  greater 
than  of  our  increasing  them.  Equally  or  more 
so  is  the  idea  that  we  rely  on  them  mainly  for 
the  conversion  of  the  heathen.  Missionaries, 
when  they  go  to  pagan  countries,  cannot  usu- 
ally take  with  them  what  is  required  for  the 
solemn  observance  of  ecclesiastical  functions  ; 
and  if  they  could  they  could  seldom  use  them, 
on  account  of  the  danger  of  exciting  persecution 
by  public  displays  of  that  or  any  sort.  The 
teaching  of  the  faith  by  them  in  heathen  lands 
is  more  like  what  you  might  find  here  in  the 
poorest  kind  of  Sunday-school. 

But  it  may  still  be  objected:  ''What,  after 
all,  is  the  use  of  these  rites  and  ceremoilies 
'anyway,  especially  in  this  enlightened  age?" 
To  this  the  plain  answer  is  the  same  as  that 
given  before,  when  we  were  talking  about  im- 
ages and  pictures.  Ceremonies  are,  like  these, 
a  means  of  fixing  the  attention  on  things  them- 


342       Ceremonies  and  Rites  of  the  Church. 

selves  invisible,  which  are  represented  by  them. 
Our  thoughts  are  apt  to  stray  if  they  have 
nothing  to  ^yi  them  but  bare'  walls.  Man, 
though  a  spirit,  is  not  merely  a  spirit ;  he  has  a 
body  and  bodily  senses,  to  which  religion  must 
appeal,  and  bring  them  to  the  lines  on  which  he 
wishes  his  soul  to  proceed.  The  world,  the 
flesh,  and  the  devil  appeal  to  the  soul  by  means 
of  the  senses  ;  why  should  we  not  turn  their 
own  weapons  against  them,  by  ceremonial,  as 
well  as  by  music,  which  Protestants  themselves 
generally  use  as  a  lawful  means    to  this  end  ? 

But  it  is  not  only  for  man's  sake  that  we 
should  employ  these  means ;  no,  it  is  for  God's 
sake  as  well.  It  is  right  that  we  should  honor 
Him  by  offering  Him  all  that  is  in  itself  good 
and  beautiful  which  we  have  to  give.  The 
ceremonial  of  the  Church  mainly  centres  round 
His  Real  Presence  in  the  Blessed  Sacrament 
which  reposes  on  our  altars  ;  it  is  to  Him  there 
concealed  that  it  is  rendered,  like  the  precious 
ointment  poured  on  His  feet  by  Mary  Magdalen. 

He  was  rebuked  for  allowing  this,  you  know, 
but  it  was  the  faithless  Judas  who  rebuked 
Him,  and  claimed  that  the  ointment  should 
have  been  sold  and  the  price  given  to  the  poor. 
Is  it  not,  then,  following  in  his  steps,  to  rebuke 
us  for  wasting  money  on  our  lyord?  At  any 
rate,  do  not  do  so  until  you  are  ready  to  take 
from   the    furnishing    and   beautifying  of  your 


The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church,     343 

houses  what  we  spend  on  the  house  of  God,  or 
until  you  can  show  that  you,  to  say  nothhig  of 
your  superior  means,  devote  even  absolutely  as 
much  as  we  do  to  the  help  of  the  poor  whom 
He  loves. 


CHAPTER  XXX. 

THK  GOOD  AND  THE)  BAD  IN  THK  CHURCH. 

I  COME  now,  finally,  to  an  objection,  the 
most  forcible  one,  perhaps,  that  can  be 
made  against  us  ;  for  it  is  one  which  really  has 
a  strong  foundation  in  fact.  It  is  urged  against 
us,  that  if  our  organization  be  really,  as  it 
claims  to  be,  the  true  Church  of  God,  it  ought 
to  bear  more  plainly  in  the  conduct  of  its  mem- 
bers the  marks  of  its  Divine  origin.  Those  who 
are  separated  from  us  say  :  "If  Catholics,  as  a 
rule,  led  lives  of  notable  piety  and  holiness ;  if 
they  were  plainly  distinguished  from  others  by 
their  superior  virtue  ;  if  they  w^ere  evidently 
more  just,  truthful,  pure,  sober,  and  temperate 
than  those  around  them  ;  if  it  could  be  seen 
from  their  conduct  that  their  hearts  were  set  on 
things  above,  not  on  those  of  this  world ;  then 
indeed  we  would  be  more  inclined  to  acknowl- 
edge that  they  were  the  true  followers  of  Him 
who  gave  to  us  the  great  example  of  what  man 
ought   to  be.     *  By  their  fruits,'  He  said,  *ye 


344     The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church, 

shall  know  them  '  ;  but  we  do  not  see  the 
fruits  in  the  lives  of  most  of  the  Catholics  with 
whom  we  meet." 

As  I  have  said,  I  do  not  deny  the  force  of 
this  objection.  That  Catholics  are  not  what 
they  ought  to  be  is  indeed  a  cause  of  reproach  ; 
it  is  truly  a  scandal,  a  rock  of  offence,  a  stum- 
bling-block to  unbelievers  for  which  they  are 
to  blame. 

But  it  should  in  justice  be  noted  that  it  is 
one  which  our  I^ord  Himself,  in  founding  His 
Church,  foresaw  and  foretold.  '*It  is  impossi- 
ble," He  said  (lyuke  xvii.  i),  **that  scandals 
should  not  come :  but  woe  to  him  through 
whom  they  come."  The  same  prediction  is  re- 
corded by  St.  Matthew  (xviii.  7).  And  He 
distinctly  announced  that  His  Church  should 
not  be  composed  entirely  of  the  good,  but  large- 
ly of  the  bad.  He  compared  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  (Matt.  xiii.  24-30)  to  a  man  who  sowed 
good  seed  in  his  field,  with  which  good  seed 
was  mixed  cockle  or  tares,  sown  by  his  enemy  ; 
at  the  time  of  the  harvest  the  wheat  from  the 
good  seed  was  gathered  into  the  barn,  while 
the  cockle  was  burned.  And  again,  even  more 
plainly  (same  chapter,  47-48),  He  said  that  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  was  like  a  net  cast  into  the 
sea,  gathering  together  all  kind  of  fishes,  of 
which  the  good  were  kept,  the  bad  thrown 
away.     And  yet  again  (Matt.  xxv.  1-12),  it  is 


The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church,     345 

compared  to  ten  virgins,  five  of  whom  were 
wise,  five  foolish. 

Now,  in  these  passages  it  is  plain  that  by  the 
kingdom  of  heaven  is  meant  the  Church  on 
earth.  For  He  says  that  at  the  end  of  the 
world  (Matt.  xiii.  41)  :  *'  The  Son  of  man  shall 
send  his  angels,  and  they  shall  gather  out  of 
his  kingdom  all  scandals,  and  them  that  work 
iniquity."  But,  as  St.  Gregory  remarks,  in 
His  kingdom  above  no  scandals  or  workers  of 
iniquity   are  to  be  found,  to  be  gathered  out. 

Protestants  have  generally  labored  to  con- 
struct a  church  on  earth  unlike  this  which  our 
Lord  described ;  that  is  to  say,  a  church  con- 
sisting entirely  of  good  people.  Church-mem- 
bers, with  them,  usually  have  to  make  a  special 
profession  of  religion  ;  they  are  supposed  to  get 
religion  by  a  particular  favor  conferred  on  them 
from  on  high.  In  some  denominations,  it  is 
supposed  also  that  if  one  once  really  gets  reli- 
gion he  cannot  lose  it ;  he  is  justified  and 
sanctified  from  that  time  on,  and  his  life  is  ex- 
pected to  correspond  with  the  particular  favor 
which  he  has  received.  If  he  backslides  al- 
together, this  can  be  accounted  for  by  his  never 
really  having  got  religion  at  all ;  though  in 
Luther's  mind,  as  has  before  been  observed,  a 
careless  and  sinful  life  would  have  been  no 
argument  against  such  an  one,  if  he  still  kept 
up  a  lively  faith  that  he  had   been  saved  by 


346     The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church. 

Christ.  But  this  would  hardly  do  now,  and 
indeed  it  could  hardly  have  ever  worked  in 
practice  ;  practically,  with  most  of  our  Protest- 
ants, a  man  or  woman  who  is  a  church-member 
must  lead  a  good  life,  such  as  is  worthy,  at 
least  in  appearance,  of  the  profession  which  is 
made. 

But  with  us  all  this  is  different.  Every  one 
who  is  baptized  is  with  us  a  member  of  the 
Church,  just  as  much  as  the  Pope  himself. 
There  is  no  distinction  with  us  between  com- 
municants and  non-communicants,  except  what 
comes  from  the  consideration  that  very  young 
children  cannot  be  expected  to  communicate 
intelligently,  so  that  it  is  advisable  that  they 
should  not  receive  until  the  age,  say,  of  ten  or 
eleven.  But  there  is  no  hard-and-fast  line 
drawn  even  here ;  some  children  who  are  spe- 
cially intelligent  or  pious  make  their  first  Com- 
munion at  an  earlier  age.  And  the  practice 
has  prevailed  at  some  times  and  places  of  giv- 
ing Communion  even  to  infants.  I  need  hardly 
say   that    this   does   not    exist   here  with   us. 

It  is  true  that  Catholics  are  sometimes  * '  ex- 
communicated," as  we  say,  until  such  time  as 
they  repent  for  specially  grievous  or  scandalous 
sins,  committed  in  defiance  of  the  excommuni- 
cation which  may  be  attached  to  such  sins. 
But  this  is  rare ;  one  is  not  excommunicated 
simply  by  leading  a  careless  or  even  a  sinful  life. 


The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church,     347 

The  result  of  our  discipline  is,  of  course,  that 
we  have,  in  accordance  with  our  Lord's  pre- 
diction, a  large  number  of  negligent  or  even 
notably  vicious  people,  whose  lives  are  a  scan- 
dal to  the  Church,  and  reprobated  by  it  in  the 
plainest  way,  but  who  still  hold  on  to  their 
faith  and  must  be  considered  as  Catholics. 
We  may  sometimes  wonder  that  they  do  not 
abandon  the  Church  whose  instructions  they 
confessedly  do  not  follow  ;  but  if  they  do  not 
the  Church  does  not  expel  them,  except  in  the 
extreme  or  special  cases  above  mentioned,  but 
still  counts  them  as  her  children,  and  patiently 
hopes  and  waits  for  their  repentance  and  return, 
at  least  at  the  hour  of  death.  The  tares  are 
allowed  to  grow  up  with  the  wheat,  to  be  sepa- 
rated finally  only  by  God  and  His  angels  at  the 
judgment,  not  before,  according  to  our  Lord's 
words  already  quoted.  We  should  make  great 
mistakes  if  we  should  try  to  separate  them 
here ;  we  should,  as  He  has  warned  us,  root 
up  the  wheat  with  the  tares;  for  often  those 
who  have  sinned  turn  to  God,  and  persevere  to 
the  end  ;  while  those  who  for  a  long  time  have 
served  Him  sometimes  fall  away. 

No  comparison  can,  then,  justly  be  made  be- 
tween Catholic  and  Protestant  church-members 
or  even  church-goers  ;  for  all  Catholics,  practi- 
cally, are  church- members  until  they  formally 
renounce  their  faith,  while  only  a  select  num- 


34^      The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church, 

ber  of  Protestants  are  so  ;  and  Catholics,  as  a 
rule,  however  bad  their  lives,  go  to  Mass  oc- 
casionally at  least,  and  very  probably  regularly, 
while  Protestants  are  very  apt  to  stay  at  home. 

But  it  may  be  still  urged  that  the  conduct  of 
Protestants  at  large,  irrespective  of  church- 
membership,  is  better  than  that  of  Catholics. 
I  would  say  to  this,  that  were  it  true  it  would 
perhaps  prove  too  much  for  those  to  whom 
these  pages  are  principally  addressed  ;  that  is, 
for  sincere  and  practical  non- Catholic  Chris- 
tians, who  believe  in  the  Christian  religion  and 
live  according  to  their  idea  of  it.  For  a  very 
large  proportion,  if  not  indeed  an  actual  ma- 
jority of  Protestants,  at  least  in  this  country, 
are  simply  that  and  nothing  more  ;  that  is  to 
say,  they  protest,  as  their  fathers  did,  against 
the  Catholic  Church,  but  their  religion  stops  at 
that.  There  is  nothing  positive  about  it ;  in 
other  words,  they  simply  have  no  faith.  Chris- 
tian or  otherwise.  Take  care,  then,  that  you  do 
not  undermine  the  ground  on  which  you  your- 
selves stand,  by  adducing  arguments  w^hich 
may  only  go  to  prove  that  Christianity  is  worse 
than  no  religion  at  all. 

In  point  of  fact,  however,  the  arguments 
which  you  draw  from  your  own  observation  of 
things  immediately  around  you,  or  in  this 
country,  generally  have  little  bearing  on  the 
question.     The  ordinary  criminality  which  at- 


The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church,     349 

tracts  your  attention  is  rather  due  to  lack  of 
education  and  of  worldly  means  than  to  any 
other  cause.  Education,  the  cultivation  of  the 
intellect,  has  a  double  effect  in  this  regard.  It 
withdraws  a  man  somewhat  from  the  lower  and 
more  animal  temptations,  by  giving  him  some- 
thing else  to  think  about ;  at  the  same  time  it 
enables  him  to  conceal  his  sins  more  skilfully, 
and  to  plan  them  more  artfully.  And  wealth 
secures  him  from  the  ordinary  smaller  and  open 
sins  against  property,  at  the  same  time  enabling 
him  better  to  protect  himself  from  the  conse- 
quences of  dishonesty.  It  may  well  be  ques- 
tioned whether  education  and  wealth  make  men 
really  better ;  but  they  certainly  make  them 
apparently  so,  as  a  rule.  The  comparison,  then, 
between  one  religious  or  irreligious  belief  and 
another,  made  from  ordinary  superficial  statis- 
tics, is  not  fair  till  these  causes  of  difference  are 
removed  or  due  allowance  made  for  them. 
Men,  like  things,  otherwise  similar  must  be 
taken  for  comparison,  if  we  are  going  to  ascer- 
tain the  effect  of  some  particular  disparity,  as 
that  of  religion,  now  in  question. 

And  it  must  be  remembered  that  it  is  not  our 
fault  that  the  Catholics  of  this  country  have,  as 
a  rule,  hitherto  occupied  a  lower  position  with 
regard  to  these  worldly  gifts  than  their  fellow- 
citizens.  Those  of  them  from  whom  you  most- 
ly draw  your  conclusions  have  been  deprived 


3 so     The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church, 

of  these  advantages,  and  deprived  of  them,  not 
by  their  religion  but  on  account  of  their  reli- 
gion. England  has  for  centuries  taken  from 
them  the  necessary  means  of  acquiring  wealth 
and  knowledge,  except  on  the  condition  that 
they  would  renounce  their  faith  ;  this  is  simply 
history,  and  an  unspeakably  disgraceful  page 
of  it.  Englishmen,  and  the  descendants  of 
Englishmen,  ought  to  be  ashamed  to  speak  of 
persecution,  after  this  crushing  of  the  minds 
and  bodies  of  a  whole  nation  for  hundreds  of 
years.  And  yet  some  of  them  would  continue 
the  same  work  here. 

To  resume.  We  are  anxious  that  Catholics 
should  acquire  the  same  advantages  as  others, 
provided  that  they  do  not  set  their  hearts  more 
on  the  wisdom  and  goods  of  this  world  than  on 
those  which  are  from  above  ;  and  we  are  mak- 
ing up  the  difference,  as  you  cannot  fail  to  see, 
as  fast  as  you  will  let  us. 

The  fairest  comparison  which  can  now  be 
made  between  the  effects  of  the  Catholic  religion 
and  the  various  Protestant  forms  of  Christian- 
ity, would  be  that  between  those  who  carry  out 
in  their  lives  their  respective  precepts.  We  are 
not  at  all  afraid  to  put  the  conduct  of  practical 
Catholics,  who  approach  the  sacraments  regu- 
larly, against  that  of  any  other  church-members. 

The  general  question,  however,  of  the  rela- 
tive morality  of  Catholic  and  Protestant  coun- 


The  Good  and  the  Bad  in  the  Church.     351 
_     ^  ___ 

tries  all  over  the  world,  in  which  the  differences 
of  which  I  have  spoken  are  of  course  to  some 
extent  removed,  is,  no  doubt,  of  great  interest, 
and  the  results,  when  thoroughly  treated,  may 
somewhat  surprise  you.  Books  have  been 
written  on  this  subject,  which  is  too  extensive 
to  be  treated  here  ;  one  quite  lately,  and  now 
easily  obtainable,  by  Rev.  A.  Young,  C.S.P., 
under  the  title  Catholic  and  Protestant  Countries 
compared. 

But  do  not  forget  for  a  moment  that  we  by 
no  means  claim  that  because  a  man  is  a  Catho- 
lic, he  is  necessarily  better  than  one  who  is 
not.  So  far  is  this  from  being  the  case,  that 
bad  Catholics  who  live  regardless  of  the  laws 
and  the  morality  of  the  Church  may  easily  be, 
and  often  are,  worse  than  if  they  did  not  belong 
to  it.  There  is  a  Latin  proverb,  **  Corruptio 
optimi  pessima'' \  which  means,  **The  cor- 
ruption of  what  was  best  is  the  worst  of  all 
corruption."  And  indeed  it  is  plain,  if  the 
Catholic  religion  is  what  we  claim,  that  he  who 
sins  against  it  is  worse  than  others,  as  sinning 
against  the  greater  light.  But  this  is  no  rea- 
son for  our  not  coming  to  the  light,  and  follow-  v^^ 
ing  its  guidance.  ''  The  kingdom  of  heaven, "'V/^g^ 
says  our  Divine  Saviour  (v.  45-46  of  the  chap-  '"^ 

ter  of  St.  Matthew  already  quoted),  *'  is  like  a 
merchant  seeking  good  pearls  ;  who,  when  he 
had  found   one  pearl  of  great  price,   went  his 


352  Conclusion. 


way,  and  sold  all  that  he  had,  and  bought  it.'^ 
Let  us,  like  him,  all  the  more  show  our  appre- 
ciation of  that  pearl  of  great  price,  which  others 
have  despised. 


CHAPTER  XXXI. 

CONCI.USION. 

I  CANNOT  well  close  this  book  without  say- 
ing a  few  words  about  the  attitude  of  the 
Church  regarding  two  vices,  which  it  is  sup- 
posed by  some  Protestants  not  merely  not  to 
condemn,  but  even  to  encourage.  And  yet  it 
ought  hardly  to  be  necessary  to  do  so,  as  the 
Catholic  teaching  concerning  them  is  simply 
that  of  reason  and  common  sense. 

The  vices  of  which  I  speak  are  those  of 
drunkenness  and  gambling.  Let  us  take  them 
separately,  though  really  the  treatment  of  both 
of  these  subjects  is  much  the  same. 

The  Catholic  Church,  then,  does  not  condemn 
the  drinking  of  wine  or  other  alcoholic  liquors 
as  bad  or  sinful  in  itself.  It  sanctions  the  use 
of  fermented  wine  for  Mass,  in  which  the  priest 
receives  Communion  under  this  form,  as  has 
been  said.  And  the  common  opinion  among 
us,  and  indeed  among  Christians  generally,  is 
that  our  Lord  partook  of  such  wine  also  on 
other  occasions,  and  that  its  use  is  approved  in 


Conclusion.  353 


other  passages  of  Holy  Scripture.  And  there 
seems  to  be  no  reason  why  other  similar  drinks 
may  not  be  used  as  well  as  wine,  reasonable 
limits  being  observed. 

But  the  Church  has  always  condemned  the 
excessive  or  intemperate  use  of  such  drinks, 
and  always  regarded  drunkenness  as  a  mortal 
sin ;  and  a  very  grievous  and  dangerous  one 
too,  it  being  the  cause  and  source  of  most  of  the 
others  into  which  men  commonly  fall.  More- 
over, as  there  are  many  persons  who  cannot 
touch  any  kind  of  spirituous  drink  without  go- 
ing to  excess,  total  abstinence  from  it  is  for 
these  many  an  absolute  necessity  ;  for  such, 
even  to  taste  it  would  be  a  mortal  sin.  And 
the  Church  has,  especially  in  these  times,  when 
the  evil  has  become  so  rampant,  set  her  face-- 
very  strongly  against  the  indiscriminate  sale  of 
strong  drit3:,  and  the  saloon  business- generally. 
She  also  encourages  total  abstinence  as  the  best  / 
of  all  mortifications,  even  for  those  who  do  not 
need  it  as  a  safeguard. 

With  regard  to  gambling,  the  state  of  the 
question  is,  as  has  been  said,  very  similar.  To 
risk  money  on  events  determined  by  what  we 
call  chance,  is  not  itself  clearly  condemned 
either  by  reason  or  the  law  of  God.  There  is 
no  reason  in  the  nature  of  things  why  a  con- 
tract should  not  be  made,  with  conditions  de- 
termined by  chance,  as  well  as  one  with  fixed 


354  Conclusion, 


conditions,  if  the  chances  are  fair  all  round,  and 
the  stake  not  so  large  that  some  one  or  more  of 
the  parties  cannot  properly  afford  to  take  the 
risk.  Would  you  object,  for  instance,  to  toss- 
ing up  to  see  whether  you  or  your  friend 
should  undertake  some  work,  whicli  one  of  you 
had  to  do?  If  not,  then  you  see  no  harm  in 
the  principle  of  the  thing,  which  is  the  same 
throughout.  But  if  this  thing,  which  seems 
innocent  in  itself,  is  prohibited  by  some  positive 
Divine  Law,  such  law  should  be  proved  to 
exist. 

It  is  with  gambling  as  with  drink.  It  is  the 
excess,  and  the  passion  for  it,  which  makes  the 
danger!  And  no  doubt  it  is  a  terrible  one. 
Gambling  ns  a  strong  temptation,  a  road  to 
ruin,  for  very  many,  unquestionably  ;  and  the 
Church  easily  agrees  with  the  State,  when  the 
latter  legislates  against  public  lotteries  and 
gaming-houses  on  this  account,  as  well  as  on 
account  of  the  unfairness  and  cheating  often 
connected  with  them. 


I  have  now,  my  dear  friends  and  fellow-coun- 
trymen, gone  over,  as  far  as  space  will  permit, 
what  seem  to  be  the  principal  objections  likely 
to  exist  in  your  minds  against  the  Catholic 
Church.  I  have  not,  as  you  will  notice,  en- 
deavored   to   prove   its    doctrines    by   positive 


Conclusion,  355 


arguments  ;  but  simply  to  show  that  what  you 
value  and  cherish  as  your  Christian  inheritance, 
it  also  holds  ;  and  that  what  it  teaches  over 
and  above  this  is  not  what  your  imagination, 
warped  by  the  prejudices  and  the  false  tra- 
ditions handed  down  from  generation  to  genera- 
tion, would  have  it  to  be.  If  you  wish,  to  know 
our  teaching  and  our  practice  more  in  detail, 
there  is  nothing  to  prevent  your  knowing  them. 
Our  book-stores  are  full  of  works  on  these  sub- 
jects, from  the  simplest  catechism  to  the  most 
profound  theology  ;  and  in  them  you  may,  per- 
haps, place  more  confidence- than  in  what  I  have 
presented  to  you  here ;  for  our  books,  in  general, 
are  written  for  Catholics  ;  and  in  them  you  will 
hardly  expect  special  pleading,  such  as  you 
may  perhaps  look  for  in  a  work  like  this. 

Read,  then,  some  at  least  of  these  books,  writ- 
ten by  Catholics  for  Catholics  ;  if  not  in  search 
of  conviction,  at  least  for  information;  that 
when  you  speak  or  write  about  what  we  hold 
and  teach,  you  may  at  least  do  so  intelligently. 
One  need  not  know  everything,  but  it  is  well  to 
know  what  one  is  talking  about.  There  may 
be,  there  no  doubt  are,  many  subjects  in  the 
range  of  human  knowledge  about  which  you 
need  not  inform  yourselves  ;  there  is  not  indeed 
time  even  for  the  greatest  minds  to  learn  all 
that  is  to  be  learned  in  this  world.  But  the 
subject  of  religion,  especially  when  it  is  the  re- 


356  Conclusion. 


ligion  held  by  the  vast  majority  of  Christians 
through  the  world,  over  three  hundred  million 
at  least — for  the  Greek,  Russian,  and  Eastern 
Churches  hold  substantially  the  same  faith  as 
we — is  too  important  a  one  to  be  lightly  passed 
over,  especially  when  all  the  information  you 
have  hitherto  had  about  it  has  come  from  per- 
sons having  the  same  prejudices  that  you  have, 
yourselves. 

If  you  hold  any  special  form  of  Protestant 
religion,  or  even  if  you  are  merely  definitely 
and  decidedly  a  Protestant,  objecting  to  and 
protesting  against  the  Catholic  Church,  the 
obligation  of  inquiry  is  stronger  than  it  would 
be  if  you  were  simply  indifferent ;  though  that 
you  cannot  reasonably  be.  For  you  ought  to 
know,  from  original  information,  not  as  you 
think  you  do  now,  from  second-hand  authority, 
what  it  is  that  you  are  protesting  against.  If 
you  protest  against  the  bad  morals  which  have 
existed  and  must  necessarily  exist  in  the 
Church  of  God,  not  only  among  the  laity  but 
even  to  some  extent  among  the  clergy  them- 
selves, know  that  we  join  with  you  most  heart- 
ily in  these  protests,  and  that  all  good  men  in 
the  Church,  its  authorities,  both  rulers  and 
teachers  especially,  are  always  laboring  to  re- 
form its  moral  life  and  to  correct  practical 
abuses.     We  do  not  deny  that  reformation  of 


Conclusion,  357 


this  kind  in  it  is  always  needed  ;  and  it  was 
no  doubt  particularly  needed  when  Luther  set 
about  his  self-imposed  task.  Side  by  side  with 
him  and  his  followers  tfie  Council  of  Trent, 
assembled  in  the  name  of  the  Church,  was  at 
work  carrying  out  a  true  reformation,  amending 
discipline  and  teaching  true  faith  and  morals 
against  the  prevailing  errors  of  the  day. 

But  if  you  think  that  your  protest  goes  far- 
ther than  this,  be  sure,  as  I  have  said,  just  pre- 
cisely what  it  is  and  against  what  it  is  made. 
Do  not  make  a  protest  against  some  dogma  or 
some  rule  of  morals  which  the  Church  never 
dreamed  of  maintaining,  and  against  which  it 
would  protest  as  strongly  as  you. 

And  even  if  you  find  anything,  though  I 
hardly  think  you  will,  in  the  real  teaching  of 
the  Church  which  seems  too  difficult  to  believe, 
remember,  if,  as  I  suppose,  you  wish  to  be  a 
Christian,  that  after  all  the. presumption  is  in 
her  favor,  as  the  interpreter  of  what  Christ  and 
His  apostles  really  taught ;  that  is,  as  to  what 
Christianity  really  is.  Do  not  at  once  be  sure 
that  you  know  more  about  this  than  the  Church 
which  has  existed  from  the  beginning,  because 
you  are  in  possession  of  some  writings  of  the 
evangelists  and  apostles  which  the  Church  her- 
self preserved  for  you.  She  has  and  accepts  all 
that  you  have,  and  more.     It  is  simply  a  ques- 


3S8  Conclusion. 


tion  as  to  which  knows  most  on  the  subject  ; 
she,  with  the  wisdom  of  the  ages,  or  you  with 
yours  of  yesterday ;  she  with  the  commission 
of  Christ  to  teach  the  world,  you  with  one  com- 
ing only  from  yourself.  Is  it  not,  to  say  the 
least,  more  likely  that  the  Holy  Spirit  which 
rested  on  the  Apostles  in  the  beginning  should 
be  with  their  duly  appointed  successors  than 
with  yourself  ?  Surely  one  ought  to  be  careful, 
and  think  and  pray  long  and  hard,  and  be  sure 
that  he  has  a  special  call  from  God,  before  un- 
dertaking to  reform  an  institution  which  Christ 
placed  in  the  world,  and  with  which  He 
promised  He  would  always  be. 

But  as  for  us,  we  will  not  find  fault  with  you 
in  your  difficulties  ;  especially  such  of  us  as 
have  been  where  you  fiow  stand.  All  we  ask 
is  that  you  woul(i  be  candid  and  sincere, 
earnestly  desiring  to  know  the  truth  ;  that  you 
wall  not,  for  the  sake  of  pride  or  any  worldly 
consideration,  refuse  to  attend  to  the  plain  facts 
which  I  have  presented  specially  to  you, 
Americans  like  myself,  and  that  you  will  act 
according  to  your  conscience  on  the  knowledge 
w^hich  you  may  here  or  elsewhere  obtain. 
And  it  should  be  remembered  that  this  is  not 
a  merely  speculative  subject.  To  consider  it 
properly,  something  more  is  required  besides 
candor  and  sincerity  ;    and  that  is  a  realization 


Conclusion,  359 


of  the  supreme  importance  of  the  matter  in 
hand. 

The  question  is  simply  this  :  Has  Almighty 
God  established  in  this  world  a  means  not  only 
for  the  preservation  of  His  truth,  but  also  for 
the  pardon  and  reparation  of  sin,  such  as  the 
Catholic  Church  claims  to  be?  Does  he  com- 
mand us,  not  only  to  listen  to  its  voice,  to  be 
enlightened  and  instructed  by  it,  but  to  come 
to  it,  to  belong  to  it,  and  to  receive  its  Sacra- 
ments, in  order  to  cleanse  our  souls  from  sin, 
and  to  conquer  in  our  struggle  with  tempta- 
tion? 

If  you,  reader,  feel  no  danger  from  sin,  no 
need  of  forgiveness  for  it,  no  difficulty  in  over- 
coming it,  this  question  may  not  come  home  to 
you.  But  if,  like  the  rest  of  us,  you  do  feel 
the  weight  of  sin  upon  you,  the  most  important 
and  practical  of  all  questions  for  you  is,  ' '  What 
means  has  God  provided  that  I  may  rid  myself 
of  it,  and  keep  myself  from  it?  What  shall  I 
do  to  be  saved  ?  " 

And  it  is  a  question  which  must  be  asked, 
not  merely  of  our  own  reason  or  common  sense 
but  of  Him  who  alone  can  assure  us  of  the  true 
answer  to  it.  One  must  turn  to  God,  one  must 
pray,  to  know  with  certainty  the  answer  to  this 
most  momentous  of  questions.  Do  not  sa}^ 
'*  My  father's,  or  my  mother's  religion  is  good 


36o 


Conclusion, 


enough  for  me ' ' ;  for  nothing  short  of  the  truth 
is  good  enough  for  anybody  in  this  matter. 
The  first  thing  is  to  free  yourself  from  preju- 
dice, not  to  take  for  granted  that  you  know  all 
about  it,  to  listen  to  reason  ;  but  this  done,  do 
something  more.  Ask  God  to  give  you  the 
light  to  know  His  will,  and  the  strength  to 
obey  it,  whatever  may  be  the  sacrifice  required. 
Say,  as  St.  Paul  did  when  he  began  to  see 
that  it  was  God  whom  he  had  been  opposing, 
*'  Lord,  what  wilt  Thou  have  me  to  do?  " 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


lODec'SS;'.**^ 


i^EC'D  LD 


DEC  1 0  1356 


^ 


#- 


^ 


M 


^ 


REC  P  LD 


NOV  11  1957 


^9- 


IL    8t9718» 


LD  21-100m-6,'56 
(B9311sl0)476 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


yS  301C2 


.^^^^ 


